Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State Ex Rel. Seibert v. MacHt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 2002No. 99-3354-WPublished

1Concurrence

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶ 4. (concurring). I agree that the State's motion for reconsideration in this case should be denied and that the opinion should be clarified. I write to place the court's corrections in the context of the State's motion for reconsideration.

¶ 5. The State requested two corrections:

¶ 6. First, the State requested that the reference to Wis. Stat. § 980.05 in paragraph 12 of the opinion be deleted as a basis for finding that Seibert has a constitutional right to counsel on his first appeal as a matter of right. The State gives three reasons for this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API