On Point blog, page 82 of 120
Ineffective Assistance: Inconsistent Defenses – “McMorris” Evidence – Prejudice; Appellate Procedure: Candor – Briefs, Record References
State v. Dekoria Marks, 2010 WI App 172 (recommended for publication); for Marks: Joel A. Mogren; Marks BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Ineffective Assistance – Inconsistent Defenses
Counsel’s choice to pursue potentially inconsistent defenses (self-defense; no involvement) was, in light of the “not uncommon practice of lawyers to argue inconsistent theories,” within the wide range of professionally competence assistance.
¶15 First,
Sentencing – Right to be Sentenced by Judge Who Took Plea / Heard Evidence of Guilt
State v. Kacey G. Johnson, 2010AP1263-CR, District 1, 11/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnson: James B. Duquette; Johnson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Johnson forfeited his claim of a right to be sentenced by the judge who took his guilty plea, by failing to object contemporaneously. This is not a matter requiring the defendant’s personal assent.
¶11 Fundamental fairness is a general due process concept.
Newly Discovered Evidence: Test – SVP Commitment – Revised Actuarial; Completeness Doctrine, § 901.07; Interest of Justice Review
State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally
¶14 In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the evidence is,
Sex Offender Registration Requirement Where Homeless
State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2010 WI App 163, review granted 3/16/11; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Dinkins BiC; State Resp.; Reply
A prisoner subject to sex offender registration requirement, § 301.45, isn’t subject to criminal penalty for failing, on impending release, to notify authorities of his intended “residence” where he will be homeless.
Appellate Procedure – Sanctions and Inadequate Argumentation
State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.
Appellate Procedure – Sanction
Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion. Yet, as required by rule,
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory; Search & Seizure – Plain View
State v. Jason W. Kucik, 2009AP933-CR, District 1, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Kucik: Thomas J. Nitschke; Resp. Br.; Reply; Kucik Supp. Br.; State’s Supp. Br.
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory than Posited Below
¶31 We agree with the State that it is appropriate for us to consider the alternate basis to affirm the trial court that the State raised for the first time at oral argument.
Confrontation: Forfeiture Doctrine – Witness Unavailability; Authentication – Telephone Recording; Appellate Jurisdiction
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)
The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.
¶39 Therefore,
Collateral Attack – Serial Litigation Bar
State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2009AP2288, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Brief
¶14 Escalona-Naranjo requires that a defendant raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion or in the defendant’s direct appeal. See id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185. A defendant may not pursue claims in a subsequent appeal that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or direct appeal unless the defendant provides a “‘sufficient reason’” for not raising the claims previously.
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence, Undisclosed Exculpatory Evidence, Waiver Rule; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Sentencing
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence
The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.
The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;
Curative Instruction; Theft by Fraud – Sufficiency of Proof
State v. Lea B. Kolner, 2010AP1233-CR, District 3, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kolner: R. Michael Waterman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Curative Instruction
Any impropriety in the prosecutor’s opening statement (alleged comment on right to silence) was presumptively cured by the trial court’s instruction to disregard the entire opening statement.
¶11 Not all errors warrant a mistrial,