On Point

Docket

Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10)

Question Presented (by Scotusblog):

For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

Cert petition

Here’s the pitch Greene successfully made:

This case presents a fundamental question of federal habeas procedure in the post-AEDPA world: What is the temporal cutoff for when decisions from this Court count as “clearly established Federal law”?

on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue:

Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).

The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11

7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay

Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation

The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.

State v. Thomas J. Hoffman, 2010AP1327-CR, District 2, 3/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoffman: Kathleen A. Lindgren; case activity

Hoffman’s challenge to the length of his sentence became moot once he had fully served it.

¶6     At the outset, the State contends that Hoffman’s appeal is moot; he has served his entire seven-month sentence and this court’s review on his motion for sentence modification will have no practical effect. 

court of appeals publication orders, 3/30/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 28 State v. Derek J. Copeland

2011 WI App 30 State v. Rory A. Kuenzi

2011 WI App 31 Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District

2011 WI App 34 State v. Jason L. Miller

2011 WI App 43 State v.

State v. Robby D. Kuenzi, 2011 WI App 30; for Rory Kuenzi: Thomas W. Johnson; for Robby Kuenzi: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Animal Cruelty, § 951.02

Cruel mistreatment of non-captive wild animals – in this case, deer intentionally rammed by snowmobiles, concededly cruel acts – may be prosecuted under § 951.02, whether or not the acts are specifically regulated by chapter 29 hunting restrictions. 

State v. Christopher Donnell Jones, 2010AP164-CR, District 1, 3/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Jones: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Counsel’s failure to impeach police officers with their reports, which omitted certain details they testified to, wasn’t prejudicial. Therefore, the postconviction court properly denied relief without holding a Machner hearing.

¶18 We disagree.  The omission of these reports did not prejudice Jones’s case. 

State v. James M. Drown, 2011 WI App 53; for Drown: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

As a matter of law, equitable estoppel doesn’t bar prosecution of a crime. After pleading guilty to Shawano County charges related to an abduction and assault, Drown was charged in Oconto based on the same incident. The trial court granted a defense motion to dismiss on the ground of equitable estoppel,

Yesterday, the DOJ moved to withdraw its petition for leave to appeal the TRO entered by the Dane County Circuit Court last week.  The DOJ argues that the appeal is moot because Act 10 became effective the day after its publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau on March 25th.  The court of appeals swiftly denied the motion, explaining:  “it appears that we lack the authority to grant the withdrawal motion while our certification is pending and that the Attorney General should have addressed his motion to the Supreme Court.” 

Posting will be unavoidably light to non-existent this week. Most likely the court of appeals will issue publication orders during that time. If you need up-to-date publication information, check here. For new releases, check here for the court of appeals, and here for the supreme court. Scotusblog and LII are excellent sources for United States Supreme Court releases.

Sorry for any inconvenience.