State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84 For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records… Read more
29. Postconv. Motions
State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02 For Polak: Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: ¶15. When an adequate colloquy is not conducted, and the defendant makes a motion for a new trial or other postconviction relief from the trial court’s judgment, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the… Read more
State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02 For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser Issue/Hearing: The defendant’s right to personal presence at a postconviction evidentiary hearing hinges on the existence of substantial issues of fact in which the defendant participated. Here, there was a substantial dispute, but it related to a “side issue,”… Read more
State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02 For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser Issue/Hearing: The trial court has inherent authority to vacate or modify an order (including, as in this instance, on state’s motion). ¶¶13-15… Read more
State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2002 WI App 181 Issue/Holding: ¶9. We agree with Tiggs that once he has changed his legal name, he has a positive right to be called by that name. But he may also, by conduct, forfeit that right. If he calls himself by some other name, he has announced… Read more
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: The trial court erred in granting a motion to modify sentence without either seeking the state’s response or holding a hearing. Procedure on motion to modify sentence is similar to that for a post-conviction motion under § 974.06(3)… Read more
State v. Robert L. Noll, 2002 WI App 273 Issue: Whether a new-factor based motion to modify sentence may be rejected as untimely under § 973.19. Holding: The motion invoked the trial court’s inherent authority to modify, and therefore § 973.19 and its 90-day deadline was inapplicable. ¶5. The two procedures are distinct. Under § 973.19 a defendant… Read more
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2002 WI App 293, affirmed, 2004 WI 107 For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The pleading requirements for a hearing imposed by State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) aren’t applicable to a motion for plea-withdrawal based on defective colloquy: ¶20. Hampton responds… Read more
