On Point: L. Harmless Error

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,

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,

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.

State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2012 WI 5, reversing 2010 WI App 175; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

The trial judge’s daughter-in-law was part of the jury pool; Sellhausen didn’t seek her removal for cause, but used a peremptory to strike her, which rendered harmless any possible error in the trial judge sua sponte failing to remove the juror for cause.

on review of unpublished opinion; for Lemoine: Donna L. Hintze, Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Involuntary Statement – Coercion 

Issue (composed by On Point): 

Whether Lemoine’s in-custody statement was involuntary given the following police tactics:

• promising that in exchange for the “true story” he would not go to jail that night;
• telling him that he would not be able to contact an attorney while at the jail;

State v. James Lee Johnson, 2012 WI App 21 (recommended for publication); for Johnson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The guilty plea colloquy was defective, in that it failed to advise Johnson that the trial court wasn’t obliged to follow the terms of the plea bargain (here: to dismiss and read-in a count), contrary to State v. Hampton,

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206

Evidence – Prior Inconsistent Statements 

Evidence of complainant KAC’s statements made during an alleged sexual assault were admissible as prior inconsistent statements,

Questions Presented (from Scotusblog): 

1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court’s precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel’s statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all?

2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr.

State v. Joseph Hammer, 2010AP3019-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hammer: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The State’s conceded discovery violation (failure to produce reports or photographs related to a trajectory rod investigation) prejudiced the defense and therefore entitles Hammer to a new trial on two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide: 1. the erroneously admitted trajectory rod evidence “severely undermined”

State v. Joshua P. O’Keefe, 2010AP2898-CR, District 4, 10/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Keefe: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶7        O’Keefe contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Bannach and Wanta in which they read to the jury the “Diagnosis” portion of the medical reports because O’Keefe was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors who prepared the reports,