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.
8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 4 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. Lamont L. Travisgreen2 sentences2026The trial court denied Fuller’s motion. 20 and the court “would have imposed the same sentence absent the error.” See State v. Travis, 2013 WI 38, ¶73 , 347 Wis. 2d 142 , 832 N.W.2d 491 . 2026The trial court denied Fuller’s motion. 20 and the court “would have imposed the same sentence absent the error.” See State v. Travis, 2013 WI 38, ¶73 , 347 Wis. 2d 142 , 832 N.W.2d 491 . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). 2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dyessgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 544 , 370 N.W.2d 222 , (1985) (harmless error test same as test for lack of prejudice under claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). 2022See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 544 , 370 N.W.2d 222 , (1985) (harmless error test same as test for lack of prejudice under claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Tucker
red
2 sentences2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). 2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
United States ex rel. Welch v. Lane
green
2 sentences2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). 2020The most important piece of evidence for a reviewing court is the sentencing transcript itself, not "the [postconviction] court's assertions" or "speculation about what a circuit court would do in the future upon resentencing." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997); Lane, 738 F.2d at 868 ; Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 ). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Donavinn D. Coffee
green
2 sentences2026“The most important piece of evidence for [an] appellate] court is the sentencing transcript itself, not ‘the [postconviction] court’s assertions’ or ‘speculation about what a circuit court would do the in the future upon resentencing.’” Id. (last alteration in original; citation omitted). 2026To show harmless error, the State must “demonstrat[e] that the [circuit] court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.