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
E. No-Merit Reports
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
