On Point: 4. Specific issues

State v. Alvin James Jemison, Jr., 2021AP2207-CR, 7/18/23, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After a jury trial, Jemison was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of an unconscious person (Teresa) as a repeater – serious sex crime and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release to extended supervision. See Wis. Stat. § 939.618(2)(b). After the circuit court denied his postconviction motion without a Machner hearing, Jemison raised three claims on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the completed sexual intercourse charge, (2) the court erred in its admission of other acts evidence, and (3) the court erroneously denied his claims without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals rejects each of Jemison’s claims and affirms.

Department on Aging v. R.B.L., 2022AP1431, District I, 6/27/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In this protective placement appeal raising two interesting issues related to the circuit court’s competency, the court of appeals reverses with instructions to dismiss the underlying petition.

State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.

State v. R.A.M., 2023AP441, 6/6/23, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/26/23; affirmed 6/25/24 case activity

R.A.M. was defaulted on grounds after she missed a single hearing. While the “hearing” was the fourth day of her TPR court trial, she had appeared at every prior hearing, including the first three days of trial.  As all too commonly happens, the circuit court determined that R.A.M.’s single non-appearance was “egregious and in bad faith and without justification” without ever hearing from her, and held that she had waived her right to counsel under Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals notes the paucity of grounds for this decision in a footnote, but as R.A.M. doesn’t challenge the finding of egregiousness, the opinion doesn’t otherwise address it. It does address what came next: rather than waiting the two days the same statute requires to hold a dispositional hearing after a counsel waiver, the court held the hearing on the same day and terminated R.A.M.’s rights.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County and Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2022AP1999-W, PFR granted 03/31/2023;  COA decision affirmed, 2024 WI 14, case activity (including briefs, petition for review, and state’s response)

Davis was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors in Dane County. He applied for an attorney through the State Public Defender a day after his arrest, but made his initial appearance before a court commissioner without appointed trial counsel. That same day, Davis’ case was assigned to Judge Ellen K. Berz. Counsel was appointed to represent Davis 65 days later, and after consultation with his newly appointed counsel, Davis filed a request for substitution. Judge Berz denied the request as “untimely.” The supreme court will now review whether the delayed appointment of counsel provides an exception to the strict adherence to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4)’s deadline to file a request for substitution.

State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2023 WI 22, 03/28/2023, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state agreed to “not recommend a specific term of imprisonment.” At sentencing, the state argued for 27 years imprisonment, consisting of 12 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. Nietzold objected, was denied a postconviction motion hearing in the circuit court, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered resentencing before a different judge. Now, a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the state “cured” its undisputed material and substantial breach because the prosecutor “acknowledged the blunder and modified the State’s recommendation to an undefined prison term-exactly what Nietzold agreed to.” (Opinion, ¶14).

State v. Jeremy Joseph Hamilton, 2022AP1350-CR, District 2, 03/01/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

Some readers of this decision might find themselves wondering why there’s no equivalent to baseball’s “tie goes to the runner” rule in criminal appeals. Others might find themselves researching the rule of lenity. However, it turns out there is no such rule in baseball, and the rule of lenity only assists defendants as a canon of statutory construction where a “grievous ambiguity” exists. See State v. Guarnero, 2015 WI 72, ¶26, 363 Wis. 2d 857, 867 N.W.2d 400; see also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 1, ¶19, 249 Wis. 2d 492, 637 N.W.2d 733 (rejecting a “close case” rule which would favor criminal defendants in breach of plea claims). As the court of appeals puts it: “…this is a very, very close case…[but] even close cases have to be decided one way or another…” (Opinion, ¶14).

State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25).

State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and  (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).

State v. Douglas J. Richer, 2019AP2024, 5/18/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Douglas Richer was charged in two related cases in two counties; he reached a deal with the state wherein he’d plead to just one count in Eau Claire and there’d be a joint sentencing recommendation. The plea colloquy was a thorough one; Richer expressed dissatisfaction about various aspects of the prosecution but made it very clear that he wanted to plead no-contest. After a number of clarifications the circuit court eventually accepted the plea and found Richer guilty. During sentencing (which was part of the same hearing as the plea), the prosecutor and the court took umbrage at some of Mr. Richer’s statements and, at the state’s suggestion, the court said it was “withdrawing” Richer’s plea. Richer and his counsel objected, both at that hearing and in a later written motion, but to no avail. Richer eventually entered a much less favorable bargain and received a sentence substantially longer than the one the parties had agreed to recommend.