State v. Jeremy P., 2005 WI App 13 For Jeremy P.: Adam B. Stephens Issue/Holding: Because mandatory sex offender registration for certain juvenile offenders, §§ 938.34(15m)(bm) and 301.45(1m), is not punishment it does not violate procedural due process, ¶¶8-15. The court’s retention of discretion in administering registration defeats a substantive due process claim, ¶22. An equal protection… Read more
Published 2005
State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: ¶14. We conclude that, provided the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment established for the base offense, a court’s remarks attributing a portion of the sentence to an applicable enhancer does not constitute grounds to vacate that portion of… Read more
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶16. Matke also contends that the trial court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2), which is now ours as well, violates due process because it permits the court to sentence him for a sixth OMVWI without requiring the State to… Read more
State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05 For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 969.02(6) mandates that bail money be used to satisfy court costs, with no room for discretionary return to the depositor rather than payment of costs. ¶¶7-9. This is a misdemeanor, but the relevant… Read more
State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255 For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial Issue: Whether the officer’s inability to perform an “effective” patdown permitted a further intrusion that led to the discovery of contraband. Holding: ¶12 Our supreme court has not, however, addressed the scope of a permissibleTerry search where an… Read more
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly exercised discretion in denying eligibility for Earned Release, § 302.05(3), despite misperceiving at one point that defendant was statutorily ineligible: ¶17 … [A]t the December 6, 2004, [postconviction] hearing … [t]he court stated: Well… Read more
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue: Whether Stank was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, relative to the credibility of the informant, in support of his attack on probable cause for the search warrant. Holding: ¶30 We hold that Stank was not entitled to such a hearing. In Morales… Read more
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue: Whether a time lag of two months between the informant’s observations and the application for the search warrant rendered the warrant stale. Holding: Passage of time dose not alone render probable cause stale; the warrant-issuing court may consider various factors, ¶33 (citing State… Read more
