≡ Menu

9. Procedure for motion

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2013AP1615-CR, District 1, 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity The court of appeals rejects Gonzalez-Villarreal’s challenge to his conviction for possessing child pornography based on claims that: his right to a speedy trial was violated; discovery restrictions violated his right to equal protection; other acts evidence was erroneously admitted; the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188 For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14 n. 4: The State contends that Grady waived the issues presented. Grady did not waive the issues presented because he filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(h). Filing a postconviction motion is a timely means… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Roger S. Walker, 2006 WI 82, affirming as modified summary order For Walker: James Rebholz Issue/Holding: In order to obtain review, a defendant must file a postconviction motion to modify sentence, even if the event was a re-sentencing which came to the same result as originally imposed. ¶37      In the hope of clarifying appellate procedure, we… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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) — if the motion… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }
RSS