≡ Menu

Published 2006

State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26 For Harvey: Christopher William Rose Issue/Holding: Defendant’s recalculation of his chance’s at trial after pleading guilty in an effort to maximize chances of avoiding or reducing prison term, uncoupled to any claim of confusion about the nature of the offense, was not a fair and just… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178 For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn Issue/Holding: ¶17 The purpose of filing a Bangert plea withdrawal motion is to obtain an evidentiary hearing at which the State bears the burden of producing evidence showing that, despite a defective plea colloquy, the defendant’s plea was nonetheless knowing and voluntary. State v… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Donnell Basley, 2006 WI App 253 For Basley: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding1: The postconviction court erroneously denied without evidentiary hearing Basley’s motion for plea-withdrawal (on Nelson/Bentley rather than Bangert grounds): ¶8        Accompanying Basley’s motion is an affidavit from his postconviction counsel averring that the motion “summarizes … Basley’s expected testimony.” Counsel also acknowledges in the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house. Holding: ¶39      However, this court and the supreme court… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: ¶19      The phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09, nor are the individual words. However, the words “expectation of privacy” have a common meaning that can be ascertained with reference… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under § 942.09 for videotaping into a bathroom notwithstanding that the window was open, under the following circumstances: ¶53      Applying this standard, we conclude the evidence was sufficient for… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178 For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn Issue: Whether Goyette was coerced into pleading guilty under a “package” agreement (one “contingent on two or more codefendants all entering pleas according to the terms of the agreement”), given the seriousness of the charges and the youthfulness (age… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeffrey Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, PFR filed 8/18/06 For Townsend: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 976.05, doesn’t prescribe dismissal as a sanction for a state’s failure to notify a prisoner of a lodged detainer, dismissal as a remedy for such a violation is not supported: ¶17… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS