≡ Menu

Published 2005

State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: “(A) defendant’s substantial and important assistance to law enforcement after sentencing may constitute a new factor that the trial court can take into consideration when deciding… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert M. Fowler, 2005 WI App 41, PFR filed 3/9/05For Fowler: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶30 Dr. Harasymiw’s report concludes that Fowler still is a sexually violent person. This was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was substantially probable that Fowler would engage in acts of sexual… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Frederick W. Prager, 2005 WI App 95 For Prager: Daniel P. Fay Issue: Whether, six days after original sentencing and imposition of probation, the State’s proffered new factor (that defendant had quitclaimed the jointly owned farm to his wife) supported a modification to an active prison term. Holding: Although the term of probation was… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: ¶6. Thus, sentence modification on the basis of a new factor is a two-step process. Id. First, the defendant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding1: Though information before the sentencing court was indisputably inaccurate, the court took remedial action by ordering that this information be stricken, and thus Montroy can’t satisfy his burden of showing actual reliance on inaccurate information. ¶¶9-11. (State v… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Bail: as Satisfaction for Court-Ordered Costs

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93 For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the (pro se) sexual assault defendant’s attempt to cross-examine the complainant and principal witness was abruptly terminated by the trial court, purportedly because of the defendant’s “mocking tone” and “derisive behavior”; but where the record did… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS