On Point blog, page 8 of 71
COA rejects IAC claim and finds no new factor regarding sex offender registry
State v. James A. Carroll, Jr., 2021AP375, 8/26/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Carroll was charged with second-degree sexual assault; he ultimately took a deal and pleaded to fourth-degree. The circuit court required him to register as a sex offender for 15 years after the end of his supervision. The court of appeals rejects Carroll’s claims that his counsel’s deficiencies led to the plea, and that new factors justified modifying his sentence to remove the registration requirement.
COA: visiting a child is exercising “physical placement”; can be a crime
State v. Angelina Hansen, 2019AP1105, 7/27/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hansen’s triplet fourth-graders were in the legal custody of their father; he also had primary physical placement of the children. The family court’s order provided that she was to have “supervised placement only” with certain conditions, for two to four hours per week. One day, Ms. Hansen went to the lunch room of the school the children attended and sat with them while they ate. She said wanted to “hug them and tell them [she] loved them.” The court of appeals now holds that this conduct was an unlawful exercise of “physical placement” over the children, such that Ms. Hansen’s conviction for contempt of the family court order stands.
Court of Appeals rejects claims that trial counsel was ineffective at TPR trial
Douglas County DHHS v. D.B., 2020AP982, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. claims trial counsel at his TPR trial was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the application to his case of the amended version of the statute governing continuing CHIPS grounds; (2) failing to introduce evidence about additional visits between D.B. and his son; and (3) failing to object to testimony about his son’s negative reactions to him during certain visits. The court of appeals rejects the claims.
Advancing misinformed defense wasn’t prejudicial
State v. David Wayne Ross, 2020AP261, 6/29/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Over a dissent, the court of appeals holds that, even if Ross is right that his trial lawyer performed deficiently in certain respects, Ross’s defense wasn’t prejudiced.
COA rejects several claims in felon-in-possession case
State v. Michael James Brehm, 2020AP266, 6/29/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Brehm was arrested after a neighbor called 911 to report that he was firing a gun out his window into the air. Police recovered a gun and Brehm admitted to the shooting. He eventually pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Defense win! Trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge inaccurate cell site claims, calling client a “scumbag”
State v. Ronald Lee Gilbert, 2019AP2182, 6/22/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
When last we saw this sex-trafficking case, the court of appeals had reversed the trial court’s denial of a Machner hearing on three claims. They were that Gilbert’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: challenge the admission of incorrect cell site location information (CSLI) testimony; demand discovery before trial; and impeach the State’s star witnesses with prior inconsistent statements. The discovery claim went away based on the subsequent Machner hearing testimony, but the court of appeals now again reverses the circuit court’s holdings on the other two, and orders a new trial.
SCOW to review whether the county must appoint counsel when SPD can’t
State v. Nhia Lee, 2019AP221-CR, petition for review granted 5/19/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
Whether a circuit court is required to appoint counsel at the county’s expense when the SPD is unable to do so within 10 days of the defendant’s initial appearance?
Whether Lee’s rights to due process, to counsel, and to a speedy trial were violated by his protracted pretrial confinement as he waited for the State Public Defender to find counsel for him.
Defense win! Court of appeals reverses homicide conviction due to State’s use of snitch
State v. Richard Michael Arrington, 2021 WI App 32; review granted 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)
Arrington was being held at the Brown County Jail for 1st-degree homicide when another inmate, Miller, began chatting with him about his case. Turns out Miller was a snitch for State. With the assistance of police, Miller recorded his conversations with Arrington. Then the State used Arrington’s statements to obtain a homicide conviction. The court of appeals held that the State’s use of the snitch violated Arrington’s 6th Amendment right to counsel, and his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence.
COA holds declining to give a “statement” doesn’t invoke Miranda right not to answer “questions”
State v. Chardez Harrison, 2019AP2151, 3/23/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Harrison was arrested on suspicion of some armed robberies and carjackings. While he was in custody, a detective read him the Miranda warnings. The version of the warnings printed on cards for the Milwaukee police to use apparently concludes with a question: “Realizing that you have these rights, are you now willing to answer some questions or make a statement?” (¶6). Harrison responded to this question by saying “I don’t want to make no statement right now.” Pretty clear invocation, right? Wrong, says the court of appeals.
Charges dismissed due to delay in appointing counsel
State v. Nhia Lee, 2021 WI App 12, case activity (including briefs)
This is an important decision for areas of Wisconsin where there is a shortage of defense lawyers. In 2018, when the private bar rate was $40, Lee was charged with felonies in Marathon County and then held for 101 days without counsel while the SPD contacted over 100 attorneys to take his case. Meanwhile, the circuit court repeatedly extended the 10-day deadline for holding a preliminary hearing. He finally got one 113 days after his initial appearance. In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals held that the circuit court failed to establish it had good cause to extend the 10-day deadline. It also sets forth factors circuit courts should consider in future cases involving delay in the appointment of counsel for a preliminary hearing.