On Point blog, page 5 of 8
“Critical stages” of prosecution where defendant has right to counsel
Sila Luis v. United States, USSC No. 14-419, cert. granted 6/8/15
Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant’s legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Wisconsin’s standards for determining competency for self-representation are constitutional
State v. Andrew L. Jackson, 2015 WI App 45; case activity (including briefs)
The standard established under State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997), for determining a defendant’s competency to represent himself does not violate Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the court of appeals holds. The court also affirms the circuit court’s conclusions that Jackson didn’t validly waive his right to counsel and wasn’t competent to represent himself.
Use of counsel in prior cases defeats defendant’s claim that he didn’t knowingly waive his right to counsel in later case
State v. Scott J. Stelzer, 2013AP1555-CR, District 2, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication), case activity
After being convicted of his 3rd OWI offense, Stelzer moved to exclude his 2nd OWI (which occurred in 1996) from the calculation of his prior convictions on the grounds that he was not represented by counsel when he pled guilty to it. Nor did he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at that time.
Underfunded public defender system violates Sixth Amendment right to counsel
How many misdemeanor cases is too many for one public defender to take in one year? Is it okay to advise a client to take a fantastic plea bargain without having a confidential conversation with him first? What about skipping the investigation of a client’s story? In Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon, Case No. C11-1100RSL (12/4/13) the Western District of Washington slammed the “meet and plead” public defense systems in place in the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington.
“Bullshit” newly-discovered evidence and self-representation on 974.06 motions
State v. Joseph Jordan, 2011AP1249, District 1, 6/25/13; case activity; (not recommended for publication).
What a challenging case. A jury convicted Jordan of first-degree reckless homicide and other crimes. He lost his direct appeal and then filed a pro se §974.06 motion requesting various forms of relief, including a new trial based on: (a) newly-discovered evidence, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel. He also filed several requests for counsel,
Habeas corpus provides remedy where parent’s lawyer failed to file timely appeal in TPR case
Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83; case activity
David G.’s parental rights were terminated in a proceeding commenced by the child’s mother. He filed a timely notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief, but his appointed appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal before the deadline. (¶3). That deadline cannot be extended because the legislature has decreed that the time for filing an appeal in a TPR case may not be enlarged when the petition was filed by someone other than “a representative of the public.”
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,
Denial of right to self-representation — competence to represent oneself; search and seizure — probable cause, automobile exception
State v. Robert L. Tatum, Case No. 2011AP2439-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Denial of right to self-representation – competence to represent oneself
The circuit court properly denied Tatum the right to represent himself based on his limited education and understanding of legal procedures, as evidenced by his statements and behavior in court. (¶13). While the circuit court found Tatum competent to proceed under Wis.
Counsel – Waiver, Self-Representation – Presentencing Plea-Withdrawal
State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2012AP1204-CR, District 3, 11/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court undertook an appropriate colloquy with Strong before allowing him to waive counsel and represent himself, leading to guilty pleas. The court thus rejects his claim that his pleas were premised on a violation of his right to counsel, ¶12.
Strong had an apparent change of heart after entering guilty pleas: he turned around and made a request for representation,