Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

E. No-Merit Reports

State ex rel. Jarrad T. Panama v. Hepp, 2008 WI App 146 For Panama: Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: Panama’s collateral attack on a sentence previously affirmed by no-merit appeal may be canalized into a “Knight” habeas petition, at least where the challenge is based on a potential defect apparent in the record. The court continues… Read More

{ 0 comments }

No-Merit Report – Generally

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Amicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales Issue/Holding: (Procedure generally described, State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶17, quoted with approval, ¶¶18-23; see also ¶¶35-41, taking note of Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison AppellateAmicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales Issue/Holding: ¶30      We reject Parent’s contention that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) confers an unqualified right for a no-merit appellant to access personally the PSI report. …¶31      But neither are we persuaded by the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

No-Merit Report – Client’s Options

State ex rel. Perry Van Hout v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 196, PFR filed 10/11/06 For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶23      Where a defendant has specifically directed counsel not to file a no-merit report after being advised of his or her options, counsel is not free to ignore the defendant’s direction. We discussed… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State ex rel. Richard A. Ford (II) v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, PFR filed 9/11/06; on appeal following remand in 2004 WI App 22 (“Ford I”) For Ford: James R. Troupis For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A client who has strategically foregone a potentially meritorious postconviction challenge is not entitled… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ricky J. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11 Issue/Holding: Fortier’s failure to respond to no merit report does not, under the circumstances, work serial litigation bar to subsequent, arguably meritorious challenge to sentence: ¶15      Fortier contends that he should not be precluded from raising the issue of a sentence illegally raised upon resentencing, even… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

No-Merit Appeal: Generally

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

{ 0 comments }