On Point blog, page 1 of 2
A stitch in time saves nine
State v. Marcus Demond Anderson, Sr., 2018AP2016-CR, District 1, 10/8/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At the start of his sentencing hearing Anderson lodged a complaint against his lawyer, which the judge blithely ignored. (¶¶2-4). Do over, says the court of appeals.
Good issues for SCOW: Requests for substitute counsel and self-representation in Chapter 51 cases
Fond du Lac County v. S.R.H., 2018AP1088-FT, 10/17/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
At the beginning of a Chapter 51 extension hearing, S.R.H. told the court that he wanted to fire his attorney, and he asked for a new one. When that failed, he asked the court “Your honor, could I go pro se?” The court ignored his request. The hearing proceeded, S.R.H. was recommitted, and the court of appeals here affirms in a decision worthy of SCOW’s review.
Denial of substitute counsel affimed; it was defendant’s responsibility to procure his witnesses for trial
State v. Anthony Donte Dixon, 2017AP2221-2222-CR, 6/5/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
Dixon wasn’t happy with his trial lawyer. They hadn’t communicated before the final pre-trial conference. When they did communicate, Dixon told his lawyer that he wanted him to contact several alibi witnesses and provided their names and numbers. Two witnesses didn’t return counsel’s call. One “simply gave her information” [no explanation of that means.] On the day of the trial, counsel informed the court that Dixon wanted to fire him and was prepared to get a new lawyer on his own. The trial court denied the request so Dixon tried his case pro se.
No error in denying defendant’s request for new counsel and adjournment of trial
State v. Michael Steel, Jr., 2016AP796-CR, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Steel’s requests for a new lawyer and an adjournment on the morning of trial.
Statute of limitations, § 939.74(1) — sufficiency of “John Doe” complaint’s identification of defendant for purposes of tolling statute of limitations; denial of right to self-representation or to substitution of counsel
State v. Rodney Washington, 2012AP1015-CR, District 1, 3/26/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Statute of limitations, § 939.74(1) — sufficiency of “John Doe” complaint’s identification of defendant for purposes of tolling statute of limitations
The crimes in this case—sexual assault and robbery—were alleged to have occurred in 1994 and 1995. In 2000, eleven days before the statute of limitations was to run,
Right to Counsel of Choice: Lawyer as Client’s Witness
State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2012 WI App 110 (recommended for publication); case activity
Counsel (Michael J. Knoeller) was present while the police interrogated, and elicited incriminating responses from, his client, Gonzalez-Villarreal. G-V didn’t speak English, and Knoeller doubled as interpreter. The state issued charges, and Knoeller continued to represent G-V. However, the state moved to disqualify Knoeller as counsel, arguing that his service as interpreter during the interrogation created a risk that Knoeller might have to testify.
Counsel – Substitute; Jury Selection – Forfeiture of Issue; Other Acts Evidence; Sentencing
State v. James E. Emerson, 2011AP1028-CR, District 3, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Counsel – Substitute
Given findings made by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing, the court of appeals upholds denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw: counsel was prepared for trial; “(t)his was a dilatory tactic by the defendant,” on the eve of trial after the charge had been pending for some time;
Martel v. Kenneth Clair, USSC No. 10-1265, cert granted 6/27/11
Lower court decision: Clair v. Ayers, 9th Cir. Nos. 05-99005, 08-75135, 11/17/10
At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that “it appears Petitioner’s counsel is doing a proper job”
TPR – IAC Claim; Request for Substitute Counsel; Request for Self-Representation
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Wesley M., No. 2010AP2946, District 2, 6/15/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
¶7 A parent is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings, and the applicable standards are those which apply in criminal cases. See A.S. v. State, 168 Wis.
U.S. v. Sidney O. Sellers, 7th Cir No. 09-2516, 5/19/11
7th circuit court of appeals decision
Counsel, of Own Choosing
By arbitrarily refusing to grant Sellers a continuance so he could retain counsel of his own choosing, the district court violated his 6th amendment right to counsel, a structural error requiring reversal without considering possible prejudice.
The facts are a bit extreme – Sellers thought he was retaining one attorney and instead he was saddled with an associate,