On Point blog, page 3 of 7
Restitution challenge forfeited
State v. Michael S. Coleman, 2019AP1999-CR, District 4, 1/30/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Coleman appealed the restitution ordered for the damage he did to a squad car by striking his head against the cage inside and kicking the door. (¶2). But his challenges are forfeited for failure to raise them in the circuit court.
SCOW again can’t decide the law; declares truth unknowable; two votes missing
State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Where to begin?
SCOTUS to decide whether defendant must challenge length of his sentence to preserve the issue for appeal
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, USSC No. 18-7739, cert granted 5/30/19
Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
SCOW rejects challenges to JI-140
State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2019 WI 59, May 31, 2019, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Trammell challenged Wis. JI—Criminal 140, Wisconsin’s standard instruction on the burden of proof in a criminal case, arguing it dilutes the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His primary challenge was to the directives that “[w]hile it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt. You are to search for truth.” The court rejects Trammell’s arguments, though two concurring justices ask the Criminal Jury Instruction Committee to consider whether the instruction should be modified because it lacks an explanation of the quantum of proof required.
Court of appeals rejects pro se litigant’s appeal of conviction for obstructing an officer
State v. Dale Andrejczak, 2019AP285, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including response brief only)
Talk about disparate treatment. In a considered, respectful ruling against a different pro se appellant, the court of appeals here affirms a conviction for obstructing an officer out of deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations.
SCOW to decide if failing to object to consideration of information at sentencing forfeits right to review
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19, and State v. Donavinn Coffee, 2017AP2292-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19; case activity (Counihan; Coffee)
Issues:
Does a defendant forfeit his right to challenge a judge’s consideration of information at sentencing by failing to object to the information at the time of sentencing?
If trial counsel does not object to the court’s consideration of the information and the defendant alleges postconviction that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, what is the standard for determining whether trial counsel’s failure was prejudicial?
Refusal hearing argument didn’t clearly raise issue argued on appeal, so it’s forfeited
State v. Danny L. Waters, 2018AP1455, District 4, 5/2/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The argument Waters made at his refusal hearing wasn’t sufficiently clear to preserve the issue for appeal.
Failure to object during sentencing hearing to court’s consideration of information means the issue is forfeited
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)
At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.
COA finds hearsay and right to presence claims forfeited and harmless
State v. Delano Maurice Wade, 2017AP1021, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wade appeals his jury-trial conviction of sexual assault and false imprisonment. He argues that certain of his accuser’s statements, related by police officers on the stand, were hearsay, and that the court erred in addressing a jury question when he was absent.
Sua sponte severance of TPR hearings affirmed based on waiver and parents’ history of abuse
State v. D.M.S.W., Sr., 2018AP124-125, 4/3/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶9 We conclude that D.M.W., Sr. waived his right to appellate review of the circuit court’s decision to sua sponte sever the parents’ hearings. Prior to the fact finding hearings, the circuit court informed D.M.W., Sr. that it would sever the fact finding hearings because the parents had a history of domestic abuse and the court did not find it appropriate to conduct fact finding simultaneously. D.M.W., Sr., pro se at the time, did not object. The court also explained its decision to standby counsel and asked counsel to explain the severance issue to D.M.W., Sr. The court informed the parties that they would have an opportunity to address any concerns pertaining to severance. D.M.W., Sr. did not raise any concerns as to this issue. Nor did counsel raise any objections to the severance of the parents’ disposition hearings after the court explained the basis for its decision. . . .It is well established law that an issue not raised in the circuit court is deemed waived for appellate review. See State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 457, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988) . . .