On Point blog, page 58 of 70
State v. John H. Townsend, 2008AP2031, District I, 6/8/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Assistance of Counsel – Plea-Withdrawal
Counsel’s failure to file pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea wasn’t due to failure to investigate claimed newly discovered evidence, hence wasn’t ineffective: according to trial court findings of fact, counsel indeed considered the value of this evidence and moreover allowed Townsend himself to decide whether to file the motion,
County of Milwaukee v. Caleb L. Manske, 2009AP1779, District I, 6/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion
¶16 Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.
State v. Maceo W., No. 2009AP3098, District I, 6/2/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Maceo: Brian C. Findley
TPR – Assume-Responsibility Ground
Evidence sufficient to support verdict on § 48.451(6) ground of failure to assume parental responsibility for child born prematurely with significant medical needs:
¶30 The trial court accurately concluded that the evidence it outlined was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Maceo failed to assume parental responsibility of Jalacea.
Counsel – Ethically Deficient Performance
OLR v. Joan M. Boyd, 2010 WI 41
Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, consecutive to already-imposed suspensions. The Counts include various failures to act competently and to keep her client reasonably informed in a number of postconviction actions. In one instance, lack of diligence led to loss of the federal habeas statute of limitations, ¶8; and in another, to a lost state appellate deadline, ¶11. Another count, of potential interest,
Effective Assistance – Rape Shield
State v. Michael James Carter, 2010 WI 40
Wisconsin supreme court decision, reversing unpublished summary order; for Carter: John T. Wasielewski; BiC (State); Resp.; Reply
Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to search for admissibility of sexual conduct evidence as an exception to the rape shield law. Therefore, Carter can’t show deficient performance. Separately, this evidence wouldn’t have fallen within an exception anyway,
OLR v. Scott F. Anderson, 2010 WI 39
Wisconsin supreme court decision
Sixty-day suspension imposed for conceded misconduct consisting of: failure to take timely action with respect to civil forfeiture action against client; failure to respond to client’s reasonable requests for information and to timely communicate case developments; failure to explain legal implications of various dealings related to representation, ¶20.
Adrian T. Johnson v. U.S., 7th Cir No. 08-1777, 5/14/10
Permissive Driver, Standing to Challenge Car Search
It is well-established that a driver of a borrowed vehicle may establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle even though that driver is not the owner of the vehicle. … Courts have repeatedly recognized the right of a driver to assert a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of a vehicle where the driver is operating that vehicle with the permission of the owner.
State v. Mark W. Sterling, 2009AP815-CR, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sterling: Dianne M. Erickson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Charging Decision – Judicial Involvement
Increase in the charge, following trial judge’s veiled suggestion to the prosecutor that such an increase would be appropriate, wasn’t occasioned by judicial interference with prosecutorial discretion, ¶¶16-22.
Initially charged with first-degree reckless injury, Sterling was ultimately convicted on an amended charge of attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
State v. Eric Paul Henry, 2009AP1332-CR, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Henry: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Request for Substitute
Trial court denial of request for new counsel is a discretionary determination, reviewed deferentially under the factors set forth in State v. Lomax, 146 Wis. 2d 356, 432 N.W.2d 89 (1988), ¶¶17-18.
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Chester C., 2009AP2824, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Chester C.: Dianne M. Erickson
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
Failure to demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Strickland dooms this ineffective-assistance claim that trial counsel failed to object to various hearsay statements:
¶7 Other than complaining that his trial lawyer did not object to the hearsay we have recounted,