On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Duanne D. Townsend, 2019AP787, 6/9/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Good news: the court of appeals reversed a circuit court decision denying Townsend’s §974.06 motion without a hearing. Townsend now gets a one on his claims for ineffective assistance of postconviction and trial counsel. Bad news: the court of appeals botched the issue of whether Townsend was denied his 6th Amendment right to determine his own defense under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S Ct. 1500 (2018). As noted in our post on McCoy, SCOW needs to square that decision with Wisconsin case law.

State v. Adam W. Vice, 2020 WI App 34, petition for review granted 8/30/20, reversed, 2021 WI 63; case activity (including briefs)

This is a “recommended for publication”, split court of appeals opinion where the State lost in a child sexual assault case. In other words the State will surely petition for review, and SCOW will take it. Applying State v. Davis, 2008 WI 71, 310 Wis. 2d 583, 751 N.W.2d 332, the majority held that the defendant’s polygraph test and the confession were two discrete events, but based on the facts of this case, the confession was involuntary. The dissent by Judge Hruz would hold the confession voluntary.

State v. Angel Mercado, 2018AP2419-CR, petition for review of a published decision granted 5/19/20; reversed 1/20/21; case activity

Issues (from the State’s petition for review):

1.  Did the court of appeals contravene §901.03(1)(a) when it directly reviewed Mercado’s forfeited challenges to the admission of the victims’ forensic interview videos into evidence?

2.  Did the circuit court court properly admit the victims’ forensic interview videos into evidence at trial?

Portage County v. E.R.R., 2019AP2033, 5/21/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

E.R.R.’s original commitment term expired during the pendency of his appeal, but the commitment was extended. He concedes this makes the appeal moot but argues the court should nevertheless decide his issues because they are of great public importance and likely to arise again. We’ll never know if he had a point, because the briefs are confidential and the court’s rejection of his arguments consists of a single paragraph:

State v. Chase M.A. Boruch, 2018AP152, 5/19/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Boruch, pro se, filed a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion raising a slew of claims related to his conviction, at jury trial, for first-degree intentional homicide. He’d already had an 809.30 postconviction motion and direct appeal (with counsel). He claimed, as a “sufficient reason” for not raising these new claims the first time around, that his postconviction/appellate counsel had been ineffective. The circuit court denied the motion and also refused to waive fees to produce the transcripts Boruch would need to appeal this denial. This is an appeal only of the refusal to waive those fees.

State v. Kieuta Z, Perry, 2019AP270-CR, 5/12/20, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Perry with armed robbery and 1st degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon both as a party to a crime, along with possession of a firearm by a felon. During cross-exam a witness blurted out “Didn’t [Perry] shoot somebody in the head before he shot me? That’s what I heard.” Defense counsel moved to strike and then later for a mistrial.

United States v. Sineneng-Smith, USSC No. 19-67, 2020 WL 2200834, May 7, 2020, vacating and remanding 910 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2019); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reformulated the issues Sineneng-Smith raised in district court and on an appeal of her conviction for violating a federal immigration statute, and invited three organizations to file amicus briefs and participate in further oral argument. (Slip op. at 5-7). The Supreme Court holds the Court of Appeals “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to consitute an abuse of discretion.” (Id. at 3).

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2018AP2412-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Singh appealed an OWI second, which the court of appeals summarily reversed and remanded with an order for the circuit court to provide the relief due under §971.13–voiding any penalty in excess of the statutory maximum. On remand, the circuit court did as ordered, Singh moved for reconsideration asking the circuit court to vacate the judgment of conviction, vacate his plea, and dismiss the case. Motion denied. Decision affirmed.

State v. Keith M. Abbott, 2020 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)

After losing a suppression motion, Abbott pled “no contest” to 2nd degree intentional homicide. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of suppression for some evidence and reversed it as to other evidence. It held that Abbott’s mental breakdown during questioning did not relieve him of his duty make an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. And while it rejected the State’s request that it adopt a new harmless error test for cases where the defendant appeals the denial of suppression after pleading guilty, it nevertheless affirmed under the existing harmless error rule.

State v. A.M.J., 2019AP420, 4/14/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a juvenile case so pseudonyms abound. The state accused “Adam” of taking some vehicles from “the Morrisons” and also, in the same incident, damaging some property belonging to “the Olsons.” The district attorney filed a petition concerning the taking of the Morrisons’ vehicles, and Adam was eventually adjudicated delinquent. A few weeks after that adjudication, the DA filed a second petition regarding the criminal damage to the Olsons’ property. This is an appeal of Adam’s adjudication on that second petition; he argues it was not timely filed under the juvenile code. The court of appeals doubts the petition was untimely but holds that even if it was, the circuit court wasn’t statutorily obligated to dismiss it.