On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Santos Lee Hernandez, 2017AP62-CR, 7/11/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hernandez filed a postconviction motion arguing that he pled guilty to lewd and lascivious behavior while he was drunk–so drunk that he incorrectly told the court that he had not consumed alcohol within the previous 24 hours, that he understood the rights he was waiving, and that there was a factual basis for his plea. In rejecting his claim, the court of appeals commits an error that continues to dog postconviction motions.

State v. K.P., 2017AP612 & 613, 7/11/2017 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.P. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. He argues that the circuit court erred in striking his contest posture and finding him unfit after he failed to show up for the scheduled jury trial on his parental fitness.

State v. Jesse Steven Poehlman, 2016AP1074, 7/5/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Poehlman with various counts relating to two alleged incidents of sexual assault and battery of his wife–one in December 2014 and one in February 2015. The jury acquitted as to the earlier incident and convicted as to the latter. The court of appeals rejects his arguments that he must receive a new trial.

State v. Raymond L. Nieves, 2017 WI 69, 6/29/17, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2014AP1623-CR; case activity (including briefs)

Forget the old saws that “appellate courts decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds,” “appellate courts should not reach constitutional issues when another issue is dispositive,” and “the supreme court should not decide issues forfeited in the court of appeals.” They don’t constrain SCOW here. Indeed, the majority opinion rushes past the plain language of §971.12(3) in order to decide a major Confrontation Clause issue and to reverse a big defense win in the court of appeals.

State v. Joseph T. Langlois, 2017 WI App 44, petition for review granted 12/13/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 73; case activity (including briefs)

We all know that an appellate court determines the accuracy of a trial court’s jury instructions by reviewing them as a whole, not in isolation. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 637-638, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).  But surely this doesn’t mean that a “whole” that includes incomplete, inaccurate instructions for some charges is fine so long as it includes the correct instructions for other charges. Surely we don’t expect 12 people unfamiliar with the complex law of “self defense” and “accident” to determine which versions of these instructions are correct and whether the same version applies to three distinct charges. This split opinion says “sure we do.” Judge Reilly objects to the majority’s “as long as the correct words are in there somewhere” approach to instructing a jury. Hopefully, SCOW will too.

State v. Matthew Ray Taylor, 2016AP682-CR, District 1, 6/27/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Taylor argues he should get a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

Weaver v. Massachusetts, USSC No. 16-240, 2017 WL 2674153 (June 22, 2017); affirming Commonwealth v. Weaver, 54 N.E.3d 495 (Mass. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Members of the public–specifically, Kentel Weaver’s family–were excluded from the overcrowded courtroom during jury selection for his trial. Violations of the Sixth Amendment right to public trial have been called structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis. But Weaver’s lawyer didn’t object, so this is an ineffective assistance claim, which of course requires him to show prejudice. But how do you show that you were prejudiced by a structural error–after all, the term refers to an error whose “effect … cannot be ascertained”? United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 149 n.4 (2006).

State v. Tyshun DeMichael Young, 2016AP657-CR, 6/20/17, District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Young of attempted 1st-degree intentional homicide and 1st degree recklessly-endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should not have permitted the jury to hear evidence that his younger brother was killed exactly one year prior to the date he allegedly shot the victims in this case.

State v. Ron Joseph Allen, 2016AP885, 6/13/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Ron Allen of first-degree intentional homicide as party to the crime. He raises various challenges to the conviction and sentence of life without extended supervision, but the court of appeals rejects them all.

Marquette County v. T.F.W., 2017AP5, 6/8/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.F.W. objected to the having his treating psychiatrist testify by telephone at his Chapter 51 extension hearing. He cited both §885.60 and “due process.” He did not specifically cite §807.13(2)(c), which outlines 8 factors a trial court should consider before allowing telephonic testimony. The court of appeals held that T.F.W. forfeited his §807.13(2)(c) argument perhaps without realizing (or perhaps not acknowledging) that the statute was enacted to protect due process rights.