On Point: B. Published opinions

On February 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9 (addressing guilty plea waiver rule and holding lawyers need not advice clients about DACA consequences of plea)

State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12 (inaccurate advice about consequences of going to trial invalidated plea)

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2018 WI App 24, affirmed, 2019 WI 33; case activity (including briefs)

Because civil commitment is neither punishment nor a direct consequence of a guilty or no contest plea, a defendant entering an NGI plea does not have to be advised during the plea colloquy of the maximum term of commitment that could be ordered.

State v. Marquis T. Williams, 2018 WI App 20; case activity (including briefs)

Williams, a prison inmate, objected to DOC deducting funds from his prison account to pay the restitution ordered in his criminal case. He asked the sentencing judge to order DOC to stop but the sentencing judge declined. The court of appeals affirms, holding the sentencing court isn’t competent to address that issue. Instead, Williams has to exhaust his administrative remedies using the inmate complaint review system (ICRS) and, if that fails, he can bring a certiorari action in circuit court.

On January 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Antonio A. Johnson, 2018 WI App 2 (defendant entitled to a day of credit for portion of a day spent in custody)

State v. Taran Q. Raczka, 2018 WI App 3 (whether defendant was negligent in not taking seizure medication is a jury question)

State v.

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself.

State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Douglas got inaccurate advice about the prison time he faced if he went to trial instead of taking the State’s plea offer. The inaccurate advice makes his plea invalid.

Kewaunee County DHS v. R.I., 2018 WI App 7; case activity

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of appeals holds that the additional fact finding mandated in TPR proceedings involving an Indian child don’t apply when the parent never had physical or legal custody of the child.

State v. Taran Q. Raczka, 2018 WI App 3; case activity (including briefs)

This is an interlocutory appeal. Raczka is charged with homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle and reckless homicide; he crashed his car into a tree on the way to work in the morning and his passenger was killed. A blood test revealed trace amounts of THC and cocaine so naturally, the state charged him with two homicides.

State v. Antonio Johnson, 2018 WI App 2; case activity (including briefs)

Under § 973.155(1)(a) a convicted offender is entitled to credit for “all days spent in custody” in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence is imposed. So what’s a “day” for credit purposes? Any part of a calendar day, as Johnson claims? Or a continuous twenty-four-hour period, as the state asserts? Based on supreme court cases dealing with credit, the court of appeals agrees with Johnson that it is any part of a calendar day.

State v. Travis J. Rose, 2018 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)

A police officer investigating reports of Rose’s erratic driving concluded Rose was not intoxicated by alcohol, but continued to detain him and, after securing consent, searched Rose’s car, where he found narcotics. The court of appeals holds the officer’s continued detention of Rose, and thus the consent to search the car, were lawful because the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation.