On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity

Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility

The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide:

¶9        When applying the some evidence standard, “the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable construction of the evidence will support the defendant’s theory viewed in the most favorable light it will reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.”  [State v.

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Review – Right to Counsel – Collateral Attack 

Resendez litigated an unsuccessful pro se challenge to revocation of his state court parole, on the ground that he had completed service of that sentence therefore wasn’t in fact on parole. Forced to litigate the issue on his own, he argues on federal habeas that he was denied his right to counsel.

“[A] criminal defendant enjoys [a] right to counsel through his first appeal of right .

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction 

Where a party has filed a timely notice of appeal to a judgment, and the district court subsequently enters an amended judgment nunc pro tunc (“now for then”) conforming language in the original judgment, an amended notice of appeal isn’t necessary to confer appellate jurisdiction:

… The district court’s February 3, 2012 judgment thus had retroactive legal effect back to August 26,

State v. Anthony S. Irving, 2011AP1908-CR, District 2, 8/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation, State v. Imani, 2010 WI 66, ¶20, 326 Wis. 2d 179, 786 N.W.2d 40, but it must be triggered by a “clear and unequivocal” request for self-representation, State v. Darby,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, affirming habeas grant following remand in 539 F.3d 766 (further case history: here)

Habeas Review – Evidentiary Hearing 

The rule of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), that 2254(d)(1) review is limited to the state-court record, doesn’t apply where the state court didn’t address a component part of the claim (here, 

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas Review – IAC/Suppression Claim, Generally 

Under Strickland, Rann must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Grosshans, 424 F.3d at 590 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in habeas petitions, however, we must honor any reasonable state court decision,

State v. Jason M. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104 (recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent – Blood Draw

Following a fatal traffic accident, Jacobs performed field sobriety tests well enough that he wasn’t placed under arrest, but he was asked to submit to a blood draw. Jacobs called his attorney, who advised him not to consent to the draw, but Jacobs nonetheless agreed to go to the hospital with an officer to have a blood test.

State v. Dragisa Pavlovic, 2011AP2687-CR, District 2, 8/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Pavlic’s waiver of counsel so that he could represent himself at trial satisfied State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997).

¶8        As a precautionary measure, the trial court granted Pavlovic a Klessig evidentiary hearing.  We conclude the trial court’s waiver colloquy complied with Klessig.  

Jackson Co. DHS v. Robert H., 2011AP2783, District 4, 7/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Both federal and state Indian Child Welfare Acts require that termination of parental rights to an Indian child be supported by testimony of a qualified expert witness “that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child,” 25 U.S.C.

State v. Michael L. Frey, 2012 WI 99, affirming unpublished decision; case activity

Sentencing Discretion – Reliance on Dismissed Charge 

The sentencing court may consider charges “dismissed” or “dismissed outright” (as opposed to read-ins)

¶47  To discharge its obligation to discern a defendant’s character, “[a] sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses,” State v. Leitner,