Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Howardgreen2 sentences1996Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the person has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent motion, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was *682 inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended motion. 10 In State v. Howard, 199 Wis. 2d 454, 462 , 544 N.W.2d 626, 629 (Ct. App. 1996), we held that the fact that at the time of his appeal the defendant 1996Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the person has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent motion, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was *682 inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended motion. 10 In State v. Howard, 199 Wis. 2d 454, 462 , 544 N.W.2d 626, 629 (Ct. App. 1996), we held that the fact that at the time of his appeal the defendant | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stawickigreen2 sentences1991By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 Section 974.06, Stats., allows a sentence to be vacated, set aside or corrected "upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack . . .." Witkowski correctly notes that, under State v. Stawicki, 93 Wis. 2d 63, 67-68 , 286 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Ct. App. 1979), sufficiency-of-the-evidence issues can be "of constitut 1991By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 Section 974.06, Stats., allows a sentence to be vacated, set aside or corrected "upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack . . .." Witkowski correctly notes that, under State v. Stawicki, 93 Wis. 2d 63, 67-68 , 286 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Ct. App. 1979), sufficiency-of-the-evidence issues can be "of constitut | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Lyonsgreen2 sentences1989Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis. 2d 397, 419 , 405 N.W.2d 354, 363 (Ct. App. 1987). 1989Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis. 2d 397, 419 , 405 N.W.2d 354, 363 (Ct. App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Lefkowitz v. Newsomegreen2 sentences1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. 1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chaboniangreen2 sentences1980See, State v. Chabonian, 55 Wis.2d 723, 725 , 201 N.W.2d 25 (1972). *292 “[Whether] the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. Constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose *293 The general rule applied in Wisconsin is that a guilty plea, voluntarily and understanding^ made constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses including claims of violations of constitutional rights prior to the plea. 1980See, State v. Chabonian, 55 Wis.2d 723, 725 , 201 N.W.2d 25 (1972). *292 “[Whether] the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. Constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose *293 The general rule applied in Wisconsin is that a guilty plea, voluntarily and understanding^ made constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses including claims of violations of constitutional rights prior to the plea. | 1 | 1 |
Claybrooks v. Stategreen2 sentences1972By the Court. — Order affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to he released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 2 (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 381 , 195 N. W. 2d 83 1972By the Court. — Order affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to he released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 2 (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 381 , 195 N. W. 2d 83 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Loop v. State
green
2 sentences2003Therefore, in Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974), where the defendant filed a § 974.06 motion challenging his conviction without having previously filed a § 974.02 motion or pursued a direct appeal, he was permitted to raise a constitutional issue not raised on direct appeal because no direct appeal had been sought. 2003Therefore, in Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974), where the defendant filed a § 974.06 motion challenging his conviction without having previously filed a § 974.02 motion or pursued a direct appeal, he was permitted to raise a constitutional issue not raised on direct appeal because no direct appeal had been sought. | 2 | 1978–2003 |
Peterson v. State
green
2 sentences1972By the Court. — Order affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to he released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 2 (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 381 , 195 N. W. 2d 83 1972By the Court. — Order affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to he released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 2 (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 381 , 195 N. W. 2d 83 | 2 | 1972–1998 |
State v. Theoharopoulos
green
2 sentences1980Sec. 974.06(1), reads as follows: “Post-Conviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or post-conviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, s 1980Sec. 974.06(1), reads as follows: “Post-Conviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or post-conviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, s | 2 | 1979–1980 |
State v. Escalona-Naranjo
green
1 sentence2003Id. [9] Support for this conclusion can be found in the note to § 63, ch. 255, Laws of 1969, which reads: "Sub. (4) is taken from the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act and is designed to compel a prisoner to raise all questions available to him in one motion. " Note to § 63, ch. 255, Laws of 1969 (emphasis added). [10] The 1955 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act reads in part: § 1. [Remedy—To Whom Available—Conditions].—Any person convicted of a felony and incarcerated under sentence of [death or] imprisonment who claims that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Flowers
green
2 sentences2002State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 22-23 , 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998). [9] Wisconsin Stat. § 974.06 provides, in pertinent part: Postconviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court or a person convicted and placed with a volunteers in probation program under s. 973.11 claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such 2002State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 22-23 , 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998). [9] Wisconsin Stat. § 974.06 provides, in pertinent part: Postconviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court or a person convicted and placed with a volunteers in probation program under s. 973.11 claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Knight
green
2 sentences1996Knight, 168 Wis. 2d at 520 , 484 N.W.2d at 544 . 8 Section 974.06(1), Stats., provides: After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court or a person convicted and placed with a volunteers in probation program under s. 973.11 claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by 1996Knight, 168 Wis. 2d at 520 , 484 N.W.2d at 544 . 8 Section 974.06(1), Stats., provides: After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court or a person convicted and placed with a volunteers in probation program under s. 973.11 claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1992By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed. 1 Section 974.06 states in relevant part: 974.06 Postconviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collat 1992A defendant must show that counsel's conduct was not objectively reasonable and that counsel's ineffectiveness prejudiced the defense. 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1982By the Court. — The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or post-conviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court w 1982By the Court. — The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or post-conviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court w | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Foster v. State
green
2 sentences1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. 1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hawkins v. State
green
2 sentences1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. 1980Foster v. State, 70 Wis.2d 12, 19 , 233 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Hawkins v. State, 26 Wis.2d 443, 448 , 132 N.W.2d 545 (1965); See, also, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 , 95 S. Ct. 886 , 43 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Audilio Carrillo v. United States
green
1 sentence1978The supreme court may prescribe the form of the motion.” 2 See also Loop v. State, 65 Wis.2d 499 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974); State v. Langston, 53 Wis.2d 228 , 191 N.W.2d 713 (1971); Carrillo v. United States (10th Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 202 . 3 “974.02 New trial. (1) In felonies, a defendant may move in writing or with the consent of the state on the record to set aside a judgment of conviction and for a new trial in the *31 interest of justice, or because of error in the trial or because of error in the jury instructions, or because the judgment of conviction is not supported by the evidence or i | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Langston
green
2 sentences1978The supreme court may prescribe the form of the motion.” 2 See also Loop v. State, 65 Wis.2d 499 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974); State v. Langston, 53 Wis.2d 228 , 191 N.W.2d 713 (1971); Carrillo v. United States (10th Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 202 . 3 “974.02 New trial. (1) In felonies, a defendant may move in writing or with the consent of the state on the record to set aside a judgment of conviction and for a new trial in the *31 interest of justice, or because of error in the trial or because of error in the jury instructions, or because the judgment of conviction is not supported by the evidence or i 1978The supreme court may prescribe the form of the motion.” 2 See also Loop v. State, 65 Wis.2d 499 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974); State v. Langston, 53 Wis.2d 228 , 191 N.W.2d 713 (1971); Carrillo v. United States (10th Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 202 . 3 “974.02 New trial. (1) In felonies, a defendant may move in writing or with the consent of the state on the record to set aside a judgment of conviction and for a new trial in the *31 interest of justice, or because of error in the trial or because of error in the jury instructions, or because the judgment of conviction is not supported by the evidence or i | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. 1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1972By the Court. — Order affirmed. “974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to he released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U. S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 2 (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 381 , 195 N. W. 2d 83 | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Melvin
green
2 sentences1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. 1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Laev v. State
green
2 sentences1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. 1972Hansen, J., concurring). 4 (1913), 152 Wis. 33 , 139 N. W. 416 . 5 (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 246 , 181 N. W. 2d 490 . 6 In accord: Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U. S. 299, 304 , 52 Sup. Ct. 180, 76 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.