State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding: Defendant did not satisfy his burden of proving indigency, for purposes of invoking inherent judicial authority to appoint counsel, where he failed to submit information regarding attempts to retain counsel as well as information relative to rental property, ¶18… Read more
B. Published opinions
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶27 We emphasize that the procedures set forth in Dean by this court suggest that the inherent power of the circuit court shall be exercised to cover situations where a defendant cooperated with the SPD’s financial analysis, was found not to be indigent… Read more
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding1: ¶11 Kennedy argues that the trial court failed to properly review the SPD’s determination that he did not qualify for the appointment of counsel. In reviewing this issue, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See id… Read more
State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93 For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation. Holding: ¶8 It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith, 229 Wis. 2d at… Read more
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2008 WI App 182 For Kletzien: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶8 A person convicted of a crime has a due process right to postconviction discovery if “the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.” State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258, ¶32, 268 Wis. 2d 468, 673… Read more
Portage Daily Register v. Columbia Co. Sh. Dept., 2008 WI App 30 Issue/Holding: ¶8 We will generally not consider issues that are moot on appeal. See Hernandez v. Allen, 2005 WI App 247, ¶10, 288 Wis. 2d 111, 707 N.W.2d 557. However, the present appeal is not moot because our ruling will have the practical… Read more
State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31 For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions: ¶10 Schultz contends that the following… Read more
State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser Issue/Holding: ¶17 From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement… Read more
