State v. Tremaine Y., 2005 WI App 56, PFR filed 3/4/05 For Tremaine: Robert W. Peterson, Samantha Jeanne Humes, SPD, Milwaukee TrialI Issue: Whether a ch. 980 petition is supported against a juvenile who was not placed in a secured correctional facility following the original adjudication on the qualifying sexually violent offense but was subsequently placed in… Read more
Published 2005
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218 For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams Issue: Whether objection to admissibility of a defendant’s statement on the ground that it was “an offer of settlement” (which thus raised a § 904.08 bar) sufficed to raise a § 904.10 objection of an inadmissible offer to plead guilty. Holding… Read more
State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71 Tillman, pro se Issue/Holding: ¶2. The issue on the instant appeal is whether the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo may be applied when a prior appeal was processed under the no merit procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. For the reasons stated below, we conclude… Read more
State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71 Tillman, pro se Issue/Holding: ¶16. The no merit appeal procedure has its genesis in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and is codified in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. … Any motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders “necessarily implicates the merits of an appeal, because the… Read more
State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255 For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial Issue/Holding: ¶11 Despite the fact-specific nature of our analysis, we glean from the case law several useful guiding principles. First, an officer should confine his or her search “strictly to what [is] minimally necessary” to learn… Read more
