≡ Menu

Published 2005

Sentencing Review – Factors – Probation

State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112 For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶8        Second, Trigueros claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not consider probation as an option. Again, we disagree. In each case, the sentence imposed shall “call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183 For Jeannie M.P.: Michael Yovovich, Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where counsel knew, or should have known, of evidence establishing possible motives for each of the two crucial State’s witnesses; and where adducing evidence of those motives would have been consistent with the chosen theory of defense… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Gwendolyn McGee, 2005 WI App 97 For McGee: Amelia L. Bizarro Issue/Holding: The disobedient-child defense to a compulsory-attendance charge is an affirmative defense issue to be presented to the fact-finder at trial for resolution (as opposed to disposition by pretrial motion)… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Defenses – Issue Preclusion: TPR

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts… Read more

{ 0 comments }

OWI – Penalty Provision – Timing of Priors

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue: Whether the number of prior OWI convictions used for penalty enhancement, § 346.65(2), is determined as of date offense is committed or date of sentencing for offense. Holding: ¶5. How and when to count prior OMVWI convictions for purposes of penalty… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Patrick J. Fahey, 2005 WI App 171 Issue: Whether requested alternative testing at agency expense is deemed a “request” within § 343.305(5)(a) where made after driver was released from custody, left police department, and then returned about 15 minutes later, ¶7. Holding: ¶14      … The State, in keeping with the circuit court’s decision, argues… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Enhancer — TIS-I

State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: Where sentencing includes multiple enhancers, the court may identify the amount of confinement attributable to each enhancer, without violating the rule that an enhancer doesn’t support a separate sentence. ¶¶16-18. (The court adds, however, ¶18 n. 4, that the “better practice” is to… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS