On Point: 1. Appeals

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State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 5/18/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP897-CR, case activity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

State v. Anthony H. Garbacz, Jr., 2017AP1419, 5/3/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A Prairie du Chien police officer saw Garbacz driving erratically and tried to stop him. Garbacz didn’t stop, instead heading over the bridge to Iowa with the officer in pursuit. Some Iowa squads joined the chase and eventually Garbacz was arrested. He was not, however, taken before a judge in Iowa to determine the legality of the arrest–he was taken back to Wisconsin and charged with OWI. That’s a violation of Iowa’s Uniform Law on Close Pursuit, and Garbacz argues evidence derived from his arrest must thus be suppressed.

McCoy v. Louisiana, USSC No. 16 – 8255, 2018 WL 218-617, 5/14/18, reversing and remanding State v. McCoy, 2018 So.3d 535 (La. 2016); SCOTUSblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary).

In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, SCOTUS holds that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his lawyer refrain from admitting that he is guilty of a charged crime when he objects to that admission. It further holds that if a lawyer concedes guilt in this situation, Strickland and the harmless error rule do not apply. The defendant automatically gets a new trial.

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. William H. Craig, 2017AP651-CR, 4/17/18, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Criminal defendants have a broad right to pretrial discovery under §971.23(1), but that right is tempered by  §971.23(6), which authorizes the circuit court to enter protective orders for good cause. The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before granting a motion for protective order. But if it denies a hearing, it must explain its rationale. The circuit court did not do that here, so the court of appeals reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings.

State v. David McAlister, Sr., 2018 WI 34, 4/17/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals order, 2014AP2561; case activity

A jury convicted McAlister in 2007 of three counts having to do with an attempted and a completed armed robbery. The state’s case was founded on the testimony of two men (Jefferson and Waters) who had committed the crimes: they said McAlister was also involved. At trial, McAlister’s counsel impeached them by showing they had received consideration from the state in exchange for their testimony. But he couldn’t provide any direct evidence they had lied. Now he can, but the SCOW majority says it’s not good enough, even to get a hearing on his motion.

State v. Devin T. White, 2016AP119-CR, 4/10/18, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

White was convicted of 1st-degree reckless homicide. He argued that the trial court misapplied the law governing self-defense and improperly instructed the jury. The court of appeals repeatedly struggled to determine the thrust of his argument, but it appeared to be this:

¶15 Under White’s interpretation of the law, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have these actual beliefs; therefore, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury of the State’s burden and that White could not be found guilty if the State did not prove he did not have these actual beliefs. Under White’s interpretation of the law, his actual belief controls, not whether his belief was reasonable.

The court of appeals also admonished White’s appellate counsel.

Dane County DHS v. C.B., 2018AP38 & 39, 4/9/2018, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Yes, that headline is correct: The circuit court did not terminate C.B.’s parental rights, and the court of appeals rejects the County’s challenges to the circuit court’s decision (and admonishes the County’s lawyer for an improper argument).

This new law review article by Daniel Epps examine the subject in depth. Consider this excerpt from the abstract:

Judges and commentators sharply disagree about which (and even whether) constitutional errors can be harmless, how to conduct harmless-error when it  analysis applies, and, most fundamentally, what harmless constitutional error even is-what source of law generates it and enables the Supreme Court to require its use by state courts. This Article offers a new theory of harmless constitutional error,