Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
§ 974.06 Serial Litigation: Defendant Represented by Trial Counsel on Prior, Direct Appeal
State v. Spriggie Hensley, Jr., 221 Wis. 2d 473, 585 N.W.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hensley: Pro se Issue/Holding: The rule that a defendant’s representation by the same attorney at trial and on direct appeal constitutes a “sufficient reason” for not asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the direct appeal survives State v. Escalona-Naranjo, […]
§ 974.06 – “Custody” Requirement – Fulfilled Where Defendant on Probation
State v. Donald Mentzel, 218 Wis. 2d 734, 581 N.W.2d 581 (Ct. App. 1998) For Mentzel: Raymond M. Dall’Osto Issue/Holding: We agree with the logic of Napoles. For purposes of § 974.06, Stats., the reality of a probationary status is that it results directly from the trial court’s consideration of dispositional alternatives at a sentencing […]
Appeal – Right to, Forfeited by Flight
State v. LaMontae D.M., 223 Wis.2d 503, 589 N.W.2d 415 (Ct. App. 1998) For LaMontae: Terry Rose Issue/Holding: A juvenile’s absconding from a residential treatment center forfeits his/her right to appeal the delinquency adjudication that placed him in the center. In other words, State v. Braun, 185 Wis. 2d 152, 516 N.W.2d 740 (1994), which […]
Restitution – Limitations — court’s competency to order refund
State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998) For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution. Holding: We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution […]
Restitution — “Victim” — Police: As Crime Prevention Organization
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998) For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could […]
Judicial Estoppel: Challenge to Favorable Ruling
State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998) For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.
Waiver of Issue: Jury Selection – Batson Objection, Timeliness: Prior to Jury’s Swearing
State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998) For Jones: Michael S. Holzman Issue/Holding: The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to […]
Binding Authority — Retroactivity — Statute Declared Unconstitutional
State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998) Pro se Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for […]
Presentence Report — Use / Challenge to Factual Accuracy
State v. Wayne R. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403, 588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998) For Anderson: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A PSI represents an important source of guidance for a trial court in a sentencing proceeding. A sentencing constitutes a critical phase of a criminal proceeding. And, in a case involving […]
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Jury Instruction on Dangerousness
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998) For Randall: Waring Fincke Issue/Holding: The trial court properly rejected requested instruction that the State must prove “a level of present danger which cannot be managed safely in the community under any set of reasonable conditions,” and instead properly gave an […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.