On Point blog, page 11 of 17
State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2012AP918 / State v. Nancy J. Pinno, 2011AP2424-CR, District 2, 12/5/12
court of appeals certification request; certification granted 2/25/13; case activity (Seaton); case activity (Pinno)
Issue Presented (from Certification):
Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?
As suggested, in each of these consolidated cases the trial judge barred the public from the courtroom (during jury selection in each instance),
TPR – Meaningful Cross-Examination, § 906.11(1)
La Crosse Co. DHS v. Kristle S., 2012AP2005, District 4, 11/21/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The parent was given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the social worker with respect to conditions for the children’s return, in that the trial court permitted extensive questioning on these issues before instructing counsel to pursue a different line of questioning:
¶17 Our review of the record also demonstrates that Kristle had a meaningful opportunity to impeach Simmons’ credibility.
State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2012 WI App 46, WSC review granted 9/14/12
on review of published decision; case activity
Issue (composed by on Point)
Whether sentencing reliance on inaccurate information (here, misapprehension of mandatory minimum incarceration) is structural error.
Travis pleaded guilty to an offense that all concerned (defense, prosecution, sentencing court) wrongly thought carried a 5-year mandatory minimum (largely due to confusion about the particular offense Travis pleaded to). The court of appeals clarified that the offense of conviction in fact had no mandatory minimum.
Other-Acts Evidence: Criminal-Enterprise Activity; Exculpatory Evidence: Disclosure in Fact Made; Appellate Procedure: Incomplete Record Supports Trial Decision
State v. Michael Anthony Lock, 2012 WI App 99 (recommended for publication); case activity
Other-Acts Evidence
Lock was tried and convicted for homicide, kidnapping and possession with intent to deliver. The State elicited testimony from numerous witnesses to the effect that Lock headed a vast criminal enterprise, of which these crimes were a part in that the two homicide victims were drug dealers, whom Lock killed (or ordered killed) over drug money.
Miranda – “Custodial Interrogation”; Harmless Error
State v. Randy L. Martin, 2012 WI 96, reversing unpublished decision; case activity
Miranda – “Custodial Interrogation”
Martin was arrested for disorderly conduct and handcuffed at the scene of an otherwise unrelated incident (¶6, id. n. 6). Search of his car yielded a gun. When an officer asked him, Martin denied ownership. The officer then prepared to arrest Henry, Martin’s companion,
Sufficiency of Evidence: Standard of Review – Possession with Intent to Deliver; Right to Jury Trial – Apprendi – Harmless Error
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity
Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence
¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence are as consistent with innocence as with guilt.”
Appellate Procedure: Waived Objection to Jury Instruction; Inaccuracy in Witness’s Accurate Criminal Record: Harmless Error; Defendant’s Right Not to Testify: Retrospective Hearing – State Satisfied Burden of Proof
State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions
Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”
State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2011AP1030-CR, rev. granted 3/15/12
court of appeals certification; for Taylor: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post
Issue (from Certification):
Whether understating the potential penalty during a plea colloquy can properly be deemed harmless error, and if so, where in the analytical framework of Bangert such a determination should be made.
The guilty plea court misinformed Taylor that the maximum he faced was 6,
Charging Document: Notice of Nature of Charge – Element of Force Omitted; Sentencing: Inaccurate Information – Misperceived Mandatory Minimum
State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2012 WI App 46 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 9/18/12; case activity
For unsuccessfully trying to put his hand down his 10-year-old niece’s pants, Travis was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, attempted first-degree sexual assault of a child under age 12, §§ 939.32, 948.02(1)(d). However, that particular form of assault requires use or threat of use of force and violence,
State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2011AP1030-CR, District 3/4, 2/9/12, review granted
court of appeals certification; for Taylor: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 3/15/12
Guilty Pleas – Plea Colloquy
Certified Issue:
Whether a plea colloquy’s understating the potential penalty is subject to harmless error analysis, such that if the subsequently-imposed sentence doesn’t exceed the misadvised maximum, plea-withdrawal isn’t supported.
The details: Taylor was charged as a repeater with an offense carrying an underlying maximum of 6 years with the enhancer adding a potential 2 years.