On Point blog, page 17 of 31
Court of appeals rejects multiple challenges to conviction for failure to pay child support
State v. Bradley Wayne Phillips, 2014AP2519-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Phillips challenges his conviction for failing to pay child support because: (1) the trial court prohibited testimony from an expert witness about whether Phillips was employable; (2) the postconviction court did not find Phillips’s defense counsel ineffective for allegedly failing to present a plea offer from the State; (3) the postconviction court denied Phillips a Machner hearing on his multiple other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the postconviction court denied Phillips’ motion for resentencing. The court of appeals rejects all of Phillips’s claims.
Trial counsel’s error in eliciting evidence precluded by limine order wasn’t prejudicial
State v. David D. Hartl, Jr., 2014AP2921-CR, District 3, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
In this OWI case, trial counsel moved to exclude reference to the 911 call about a possible drunk driver, which is what led to police to look for Hartl’s car and ultimately stop him. The state stipulated to excluding this evidence. But on cross-examination of the officer, trial counsel asked questions that led to the officer referring to the call. (¶¶4-5). Hartl argues his lawyer was ineffective for doing this. (¶¶12-14). While it would be “difficult to conclude” trial counsel wasn’t deficient (¶16), it is easy to conclude there was no prejudice.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective at TPR trial for failing to objecting to hearsay, “best interest of child” reference
State v. Kamille M., 2014AP2911, District 1, 6/26/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective at Kamille M.’s TPR grounds trial for failing to object to hearsay and to the state’s veiled reference to the best interests of the child during closing arguments.
Freed from the shackles of AEDPA deference, Seventh Circuit finds trial counsel in homicide case ineffective for failing to consider consultation with forensic pathology expert
Oscar C. Thomas v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2539, 6/16/15, petition for rehearing en banc denied, 8/7/15
Thomas is entitled to a new trial for the intentional homicide of Joyce Oliver-Thomas, his ex-wife, because his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to ask a pathology expert to review the conclusions of the state’s forensic pathologist—conclusions on which the prosecutor relied heavily in arguing that Thomas caused Oliver-Thomas’s death intentionally rather than accidentally, as Thomas claimed.
Trial counsel found ineffective; promised defendant would testify, told jury about defendant’s sordid past, failed to elicit impeachment evidence
State v. James Richard Coleman, 2015 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)
Coleman’s trial lawyer was ineffective for telling the jury Coleman would testify when Coleman had never said he intended to testify; for telling the jury that Coleman had a prior criminal conviction; and for failing to impeach the victim’s allegations by eliciting inconsistent statements she made to other witnesses.
Search of car upheld based on hypodermic needles in plain view and driver’s drug record
State v. Kendra E. Manlick, 2014AP2138-CR, 2014AP2626-CR, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Manlick was charged with possession of a controlled substance and bail-jumping after an officer, who knew of her drug record, stopped the car she was driving based on an outstanding warrant for the car’s owner, observed unsterile hypodermic needles in it, and then conducted a search yielding additional incriminating evidence. Manlick’s suppression and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on appeal.
SCOTUS: Brief absence of attorney during testimony regarding co-defendants wasn’t per se ineffective under United States v. Cronic
Woods v. Donald, USSC No. 14-618, 2015 WL 1400852, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing Donald v. Rapelje, 580 Fed. Appx. 227 (6th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); docket
Trial counsel’s absence during about 10 minutes of testimony regarding evidence relating to Donald’s co-defendants—evidence trial counsel said he had “no interest in”—did not amount to a denial of counsel at a critical stage of trial justifying a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). Thus, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting Donald habeas relief on that ground.
Voir dire panel “untainted” despite deputy/juror’s assertion that State had enough evidence to convict defendant
State v. Dawn M. Hackel, 2014AP1765-CR, District 4, 3/19/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
During voir dire at an OWI trial, a sheriff’s deputy/prospective juror said he had arrested drunk drivers, testified in drunk driving cases, and said that based on his professional training and occupation the State had sufficient evince to convict Hackel, and, therefore, she was guilty as charged. The court of appeals held this in no way tainted the jury panel heading into trial.
Improperly admitted identification evidence doesn’t merit new trial
State v. Joshua Berrios, 2014AP971-CR, District 1, 3/10/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A witness named Trevino had been barred pre-trial from identifying Berrios as the person who shot him; but on cross-examination Trevino unexpectedly testified that Berrios was the shooter. This error does not merit a new trial in the interest of justice, nor does it support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Medical examiner’s reliance on toxicology report of out-of-state lab violated defendant’s right to confrontation
State v. Jason S. VanDyke, 2015 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, VanDyke’s right to confrontation was violated where the medical examiner relied on the toxicology report of an out-of-state drug testing lab to conclude the victim had died of a heroin overdose, the toxicology report was admitted into evidence as part of the autopsy report, but no witness from the lab was called to testify about the toxicology testing.