State v. Somkith Neuaone, 2005 WI App 124 For Neuaone: Ralph Sczygelski Issue/Holding: Where the sole basis for recusal is a claim that the judge was exposed to relevant sentencing information that he was entitled to hear, the very premise for the claim is flawed, ¶17. ¶16 Whether a judge was a “neutral and detached magistrate” is… Read more
Published 2005
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85 For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial Issue/Holding: The chief judge has authority to review denial of a substitution request in a delinquency proceeding, under §§ 938.29(1)(m) and 801.58(2). (Because § 801.58(2) is the more specific provision, it “applies when the… Read more
Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder Issue/Holding: ¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute… Read more
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218 For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams Issue/Holding: Defendant’s withdrawal of his NGI plea prevented him from later invoking the right of judicial substitution provided by § 971.20(5), where a new judge was subsequently assigned and no prior right to substitution invoked. The court’s analysis doesn’t track the actual… Read more
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85 For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial Issue/Holding: ¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200… Read more
State ex rel. Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2005 WI App 215 For Pharm: Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono) Issue/Holding( Dicta): ¶12, n. 6: The State also draws a distinction between statutory habeas corpus and common law habeas corpus, contending that the circuit court properly ruled that Pharm was not entitled to statutory habeas corpus relief because… Read more
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: ¶45 We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider… Read more
State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226 For Pinkard: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only… Read more
