On Point

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Suchocki claims that his due process right to a fair sentencing hearing was violated. Accordingly, he must demonstrate both bias in the PSI writer and that the sentencing process was prejudiced by such bias. See State v. Coulthard,

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

The use of a PSI is a matter within the court’s discretion. The court has discretion to order a PSI and to determine the extent to which it will rely upon the information in the PSI. State v. Skaff,

State v. Daron E. Maron, 214 Wis. 2d 384, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Maron: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

… We conclude that § 973.15(2), Stats., does not give the trial court authority to order that the sentence be served consecutive to jail time already being served as a condition of probation. …

…

Subsequent amendment to § 973.15,

State v. Delano J. O’Brien, 223 Wis.2d 303, 588 N.W.2d 8 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 247, 591 N.W.2d 846 (1999), affirming State v. O’Brien, 214 Wis.2d 327, 572 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1997)
For O’Brien: Martin E. Kohler, John C. Thomure, Jr.

Holding: A search warrant was obtained for O’Brien’s residence (a farmstead including a duplex),

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding: The odor of burning marijuana from within a closed bedroom did not create exigent circumstances for the police, who did have permission to be in the house, to enter the bedroom:

According to Londre, they believed Kiekhefer was in possession of a large amount of marijuana.

State v. Gordon Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App 1997)
For Hammer: Charles W. Jones, Jr.

Issue: Whether juror unanimity is required for burglary, as to which felony was intended during the unlawful entry.

Holding:

In addressing Hammer’s unanimity claim, we engage in a two-step process. We must first determine whether this statute creates only one offense with multiple modes of commission or,

State v. Quartana, 213 Wis.2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Quartana: Donal L. Connor II

Issue/Holding:

… Thus, when a person under investigation pursuant to a Terry stop is moved from one location to another, there exists a two-part inquiry. First, was the person moved within the “vicinity?” Second, was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable?”Vicinity” is commonly understood to mean “a surrounding area or district”

State v. David J. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, affirming 2005 WI App 195

For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶34      An in-court identification is admissible, therefore, if the court determines that the identification is based on an independent source. … In other words, the in-court identification must rest on an independent recollection of the witness’s initial encounter with the suspect. 

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding1:

Our inquiry does not end here, however. Because the agents’ entry constituted a violation of Kiekhefer’s Fourth Amendment protections, the question remains whether all of the seized evidence should be suppressed utilizing the attenuation doctrine articulated in Wong Sun v. United States,

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding:

“Police may not threaten to obtain a search warrant when there are no grounds for a valid warrant, but `[w]hen the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission, it does not vitiate consent.’” United States v.