On Point: D. Waiver of issues/arguments

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.

State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 5/18/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP897-CR, case activity

Appellate lawyers will want to pay attention to this decision because it clarifies the law and procedure governing claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In particular, resolving an issue of first impression, it holds that in a multi-count case, trial counsel’s ineffective assistance doesn’t automatically result in a new trial on all counts. In this case, SCOW affirmed a decision ordering a new trial on just 1 of 6 counts.

Sauk County v. R.M.C., 2017AP1860, May 3, 2018, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity

To appoint a guardian of the person or estate, the circuit court has to find 4 elements by clear and convincing evidence. This appeal focuses on §54.10(3)(a)2–the second element, which states:

[B]ecause of an impairment, the individual is unable effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual is unable to meet the essential requirements for his or her physical health and safety. WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(a)2.

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) . . .

State ex rel. Gregory S. Gorak v. Michael Meisner, Warden, 2017AP39, District 1, 2/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court denied Gorak’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after deciding it was procedurally barred because the issues it raised had already been litigated and decided.  The court of appeals holds that is not the case. 

Rodney Class v. United States, USSC No. 16-424, 2018 WL 987347 (February 21, 2018), reversing United States v. Class, (unreported) (D.C. Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (inlcuding links to briefs and commentary)

“The question [in this case] is whether a guilty plea by itself bars a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal. We hold that it does not. Class did not relinquish his right to appeal the District Court’s constitutional determinations simply by pleading guilty.” (Slip op. at 3).

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself.

Fond du Lac County v. Christy Ann Kasten, 2017AP343, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The only real issue in this case is whether the court, in this bench trial, had sufficient evidence to conclude that Kasten had driven within three hours of her blood draw at 10:52 p.m. The court of appeals holds that it did:

State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, petition for review granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. When assessing the prejudice of defense counsel’s deficient performance in a multiple-count jury trial, may a court divide the prejudice analysis on a count-by-count basis, finding prejudice warranting relief on some counts from the single trial but not others?

2. If a party fails to file a petition for review following an unfavorable Court of Appeals ruling on a particular argument, may the party re-litigate the same question in a second appeal of the same case?

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, USSC No. 16-9493, cert granted 9/28/17

Question presented:

In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge?”