On Point blog, page 46 of 49
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop – Informant’s Tip
State v. Joshua J. Hysell, 2010AP1817-CR, District 4, 1/27/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hysell: John Smerlinski; case activity; Hysell BiC; State Resp.
Phoned tip by driver who gave his name and described the subject vehicle as “all over the road” held sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion for stop.
Because the informant gave his name,
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion; Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
State v. Tushar S. Achha, 2009AP1977-CR, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion
Failure to preserve a challenge to trial counsel’s performance via postconviction motion waives the issue on appeal, ¶19.
Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to negate entrapment defense rejected,
Habeas – Challenge to Release Date – Sentence Credit
State ex rel. Christopher L. Shelton v. Smith, 2010AP719, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; State Resp.
Shelton was sentenced on two pre-TIS counts: an active (indeterminate) prison sentence on one count and a consecutive term of probation on the other. He served out the first sentence, with the prison indisputably holding him 143 days past his release date.
Search & Seizure – Community Caretaker
State v. Ashley M. Toliver, 2010AP484-CR, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Toliver: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick; case activity
Community caretaker doctrine supported, in the first instance, search of seemingly lost purse found in common area of apartment building; and, in the second, entry of apartment after co-inhabitant requested officer to lock it up, as he was being transported for medical care.
Counsel: Request for Substitute – Effective Assistance (Disclosure of Communications, et al.); Double Jeopardy: Bail Jumping
State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Request for New Counsel
An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant requests change of counsel,
Juvenile Delinquency – Authority to Sanction 17-Year-Old
Honorable Mark J. McGinnis v. Mario Jimenez, 2010AP2208, District 3, 1/25/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jiminez: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Jiminez BiC; State Resp.; Reply
The circuit court lacks authority to sanction a 17-year-old for failure to comply with conditions imposed for violating a local truancy ordinance.
¶4 Wisconsin Stat.
Judicial Disqualification – Relationship to Guardian ad litem
State v. Troy J., 2010AP670, District 1, 1/25/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Troy J.: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
The judge presiding over disposition-phase of a TPR wasn’t required to disqualify himself where his daughter was employed to work in the guardian ad litem office of the local agency providing GAL work under contract, given that she had no involvement in that particular case.
Billy Joe Reynolds v. U.S., USSC No. 10-6549, Cert Granted 1/24/11
Decision below (3rd Cir No. 08-4747, 5/14/10)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Validity of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and its implementing regulations.
The newly granted sex offender case involves an attempt to challenge the retroactive application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
Howes v. Randall Lee Fields, USSC No. 10-680, Cert. Granted 1/24/11
Decision below (617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010))
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether this Court’s clearly established precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 holds that a prisoner is always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda any time that prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct occurring outside the prison regardless of the surrounding circumstances.
The grant appears to raise the recurrent problem of whether Miranda warnings are always and necessarily required when someone already incarcerated is interrogated by the police on a different offense.
Habeas Review – Parole Denial – Limited to Opportunity to be Heard and Statement of Reasons
Swarthout v. Damon Cooke, USSC No. 10-333, 1/24/11
Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of a state’s decision to deny parole is limited to whether the inmate was provided an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons why parole was denied. The federal court simply has no authority to scrutinize the merits of the denial.
… Because the only federal right at issue is procedural,