On Point

State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke

Issue/Holding: Evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Randall not be released, based largely on the cicrcumstances of his crime.

Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann

Issue/Holding:

We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer set forth the recommendation in the presentence investigation report (PSI).

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:

Bizzle argues that the sentencing court erred in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. … First, her successful completion of an educational program, after sentencing, is not evidence that the court acted unreasonably or was not justified in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation.

State v. Pablo Cruz Santana, 220 Wis. 2d 674, 584 N.W.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Santana: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

In passing sentence, the trial court addressed each of the primary factors, but chiefly relied on the seriousness of the offense and its continuing impact on the victim. …

Santana claims, however, that the judge’s comments also evinced an impermissible consideration of how the sentence imposed would be perceived by the public,

State v. Paul Matek, 223 Wis.2d 611, 589 N.W.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Matek: Russell Bohach

Holding: Evidence to support ch. 980 SVP verdict sustained: the diagnosis took into account Matek’s refusal to participate in treatment, and therefore the verdict “was not based solely on his prior bad acts.”

State v. Ronald J. Zanelli (II), 223 Wis.2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Zanelli: Jane K. Smith.

Holding: Second time’s not the charm for Zanelli, who won his 1st appeal, State v. Zanelli (I), 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997). On this subsequent appeal, the court holds the evidence  sufficient to establish his pedophilia. The state’s expert witnesses testified that Zanelli suffers from pedophilia,

State v. Lettice (II), 221 Wis. 2d 69, 585 N.W.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1998)
(prior history: State v. John A. Lettice (I), 205 Wis. 2d 347, 556 N.W.2d 376 (Ct. App. 1996); subsequent history: BAPR v. Steven M. Lucareli, 2000 WI 55)
For Lettice: John Allan Pray, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

We conclude that (1) Lettice is not estopped from seeking a dismissal based on double jeopardy;

State v. Frank Miles, 221 Wis. 2d 56, 584 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Miles: Craig W. Albee

Issue/Holding: Prior drug conviction is not element of crime of second or subsequent drug offense, § 161.48(2) (1993-94), which elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor to felony possession:

Miles fails to recognize the distinction between the two types of penalty enhancers. The first type of penalty enhancer concerns facts or circumstances related to the underlying crime which alter the substantive nature of the charged offense.

Debra L. Van Riper, 222 Wis. 2d 197, 586 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Van Riper: Megan L. DeVore

Issue/Holding:

Because day care centers provide recreational and social services activities for children, they are a subset of “youth centers” and come within the definition of places listed in § 961.49(2), Stats. The protection of children, who congregate at day care centers, and are very vulnerable to the dangers associated with drug trafficking,

State v. Damone J. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Block: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding: The persistent repeater scheme survives equal protection challenge.

Block concedes that the persistent repeater statute deserves only the rational basis test.  He argues that there are no reasonable or practical grounds for the manner in which the legislature has chosen serious crimes under § 939.62(2m),