On Point: 1. Appeals

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. Brad L. Conger, 2017AP860-CR, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brad Conger went on trial for an OWI and the associated PAC. His defense was an “alcohol curve” theory that the breath tests result did not reflect his true BAC at the time he was driving. His attorney moved to strike a juror who sat on another OWI/PAC case the preceding week–one featuring the same defense attorney, where the jury convicted on the PAC and apparently rejected the offered alcohol curve defense. The circuit court found the juror unbiased; the court of appeals now affirms.

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?

State v. Anthony R. Pico, 2015AP1799-CR, petition for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

1. Did the Court of Appeals apply the proper standard of review to the trial court’s findings of fact regarding trial counsel’s conduct and strategy?

2. Did trial counsel perform deficiently by failing to investigate Pico’s serious head injury, and did that deficient performance prejudice Pico in pretrial proceedings and at trial?

3. Did the sentencing court impermissibly burden Pico’s privilege against self-incrimination?

4. Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that Pico waived issues not raised by cross-appeal?

5. Is it permissible for a postconviction court to admit and consider expert testimony by another criminal defense attorney regarding the conduct of trial counsel?

State v. Jeffrey S. Roehling, 2016AP35-CR, District 3, 10/3/17, (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs)

Haven’t seen defense win in awhile–especially not regarding postconviction procedure. The court of appeals first rejects the State’s contention that a defendant who fails to request an extension of the 60-day deadline for a circuit court to decide a postconviction motion forfeits his grounds for challenging the decision. Next it holds that Roehling’s posctconviction motion alleged facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. That makes this decision a “win win.”

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?”

State v. Adam M. Zamora, 2016AP1923-CR, District 2, 9/27/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in determining that an expert witness called to testify about child sexual assault victim reporting behaviors met the so-called Daubert standard codified in § 907.02(1).

State v. David McAlister, Sr., 2014AP2561, petition granted 9/11/17; affirmed 4/18/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (copied from petition for review)

1. The central issue at trial was whether McAlister participated in the charged robberies. The state’s evidence on that point consisted entirely of the allegations of two confessed participants seeking to mitigate the consequences of their own misconduct. The jury knew that the state’s witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse McAlister but those witnesses denied under oath having done so. Under these circumstances, is newly discovered evidence from three separate witnesses swearing that the state’s witnesses admitted prior to trial that they intended to falsely accuse McAlister “cumulative” and “merely tend to impeach the credibility of witnesses” such that it could not support a newly discovered evidence claim?

2. Whether the allegations of McAlister’s §974.06 motion were sufficient to require a new trial and therefore an evidentiary hearing on his claim.

State v. Marnie L. Coutino, 2016AP2386-CR, 7/19/2017, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for pubication); case activity (including briefs)

Marnie Coutino seeks resentencing on the ground that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed a 30-day jail sentence without considering whether probation was appropriate.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from petition for review):

Whether the doctrine of hot pursuit always justifies a forcible warrantless entry into the residence of one suspected of minor criminal activity. In the present case, the court of appeals declined to consider Mr. Delap’s argument that the conduct of law enforcement in this case, even if justified as legitimate ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect, was nonetheless unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although Mr. Delap’s argument presented a chain of reasoning and citation to legal authority, the court of appeals characterized the argument as ‘undeveloped’ and did not consider it.