On Point

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Assistance of Counsel – Plea-Withdrawal

Counsel’s failure to file pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea wasn’t due to failure to investigate claimed newly discovered evidence, hence wasn’t ineffective: according to trial court findings of fact, counsel indeed considered the value of this evidence and moreover allowed Townsend himself to decide whether to file the motion,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

¶16     Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.

court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky

TPR – Plea to Grounds

In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Maceo: Brian C. Findley

TPR – Assume-Responsibility Ground

Evidence sufficient to support verdict on § 48.451(6) ground of failure to assume parental responsibility for child born prematurely with significant medical needs:

¶30     The trial court accurately concluded that the evidence it outlined was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Maceo failed to assume parental responsibility of Jalacea.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, USSC No. 08-1470, 6/1/10

Thompkins’ acknowledgment that he prayed for God’s forgiveness for the shooting was admissible as valid waiver of Miranda rights, despite being preceded by nearly 3 hours of silence during custodial interrogation. Rights must be invoked unequivocally, or not at all:

The Court has not yet stated whether an invocation of the right to remain silent can be ambiguous or equivocal, but there is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis.

Carr v. U.S., USSC No. 08-1301, 6/1/10

… the Act established a federal criminal offense covering, inter alia, any person who (1) “is required to register under [SORNA],” (2) “travels in interstate or foreign commerce,” and (3) “knowingly fails to register or update a registration.” 18 U. S. C. §2250(a). At issue in this case is whether §2250 applies to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred prior to SORNA’s effective date and,

Wisconsin supreme court order

The underlying question is whether Justice Roggensack “previously handled” Henley’s earlier appeal when she was a court of appeals judge; if so, then by statute she must be disqualified from participating in his now-pending appeal. She declined to disqualify herself in a memorandum decision, 2010 WI 12. Further background, here. And here, especially with respect to State v.

OLR v. Joan M. Boyd, 2010 WI 41

Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, consecutive to already-imposed suspensions. The Counts include various failures to act competently and to keep her client reasonably informed in a number of postconviction actions. In one instance, lack of diligence led to loss of the federal habeas statute of limitations, ¶8; and in another, to a lost state appellate deadline, ¶11. Another count, of potential interest,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Heindl: Lisa A. McDougal; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Jury Instructions – Self-Defense

Trial for battery, which the State theorized occurred when Heindl put Lien in a headlock from behind. Heindl himself suffered scratches and swelling about an eye, but was seriously drunk and had difficulty giving a coherent account to the police. He did not testify,

State v. Matthew C. Parmley, 2010 WI App 79; for Parmley: Christopher M. Eippert; BiC: Resp.; Reply

A sex offender may obtain an exception from the registration requirement 0f § 301.45(1m)2, if “the person had not attained the age of 19 years and was not more than 4 years older or not more than 4 years younger than the child.” At the time of his offense,