State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02 For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act… Read more
Published 2002
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02 For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s… Read more
State v. Dawn M. Champion, 2002 WI App 267, PFR filed 12/2/02 For Champion: Patricia L. Arreazola Issue: Whether the defendant’s early completion of all available rehabilitation programs is a new factor justifying reduction of the confinement portion of her sentence. Holding: ¶13. Our review of the legislative history of 1997 Wis. Act 283 demonstrates that the legislature… Read more
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: Defendant’s new-found realization that his behavior was caused by childhood sexual exploitation isn’t a new factor justifying sentence reduction: “¶25 … Just as a new expert opinion based on previously known or knowable facts is nothing more than… Read more
State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226 For Hauk: David D. Cook Issue/Holding: Reversal of defendant’s conviction in another case is new factor (where remaining, valid sentence was concurrent to vacated sentence) upon which trial court may, but is not required, to reduce sentence… Read more
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: The trial court erred in granting a motion to modify sentence without either seeking the state’s response or holding a hearing. Procedure on motion to modify sentence is similar to that for a post-conviction motion under § 974.06(3) — if the motion… Read more
State v. Robert L. Noll, 2002 WI App 273 Issue: Whether a new-factor based motion to modify sentence may be rejected as untimely under § 973.19. Holding: The motion invoked the trial court’s inherent authority to modify, and therefore § 973.19 and its 90-day deadline was inapplicable. ¶5. The two procedures are distinct. Under § 973.19 a defendant… Read more
Richard Thielman v. Leean, 2002 WI App 33 Companion case: Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002)For Thielman: Mary Kennelly Issue/Holding: ¶1. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) appeals the circuit court’s order enjoining DHFS from transporting Richard Thielman and similarly committed ch. 980 patients to and from treatment facilities such as… Read more
