On Point blog, page 1 of 5
Guardianship – Respondent’s Right to Personal Presence
Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed.
¶5 A determination that a person “is incompetent … is as difficult a judgment as a judge is called upon to make,” and thus the legislature has adopted procedural requirements “to mitigate the chances of error.” Byrn v.
DNA Surcharge – Timeliness of Challenge
State v. Raymond Allen Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (recommended for publication); pro se; State Resp.; Robert R. Henak, WACDL, Amicus Brief
Nickel’s challenge to his DNA surcharge was untimely, because made outside the direct appeal time limits:
¶5 When a defendant moves to vacate a DNA surcharge, the defendant seeks sentence modification. Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 973.19, a defendant may move for sentence modification within ninety days after sentencing.
“In-Home Seizure” – “Constructive Entry”
City of Sheboygan v. Brian J. Cesar, 2010 WI App 170 (recommended for publication); for Cesar: Andrew Mishlove, Lauren Stuckert; Cesar BiC; City Resp.; Reply; AG Amicus
Police, investigating a recent traffic accident, knocked on Cesar’s door and rang his doorbell “numerous” times for up to 10 minutes, and threatened to remain until he came out or they got a warrant;
Juror Disqualification – In-Law of Presiding Judge
State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2010 WI App 175, reversed, 2012 WI 5; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
¶1 Sharon Sellhausen appeals her jury conviction based on the presence of the presiding judge’s daughter-in-law on the panel of potential jurors. The daughter-in-law was not seated on the jury because Sellhausen’s trial counsel used a peremptory challenge to remove her.
Ineffective Assistance: Inconsistent Defenses – “McMorris” Evidence – Prejudice; Appellate Procedure: Candor – Briefs, Record References
State v. Dekoria Marks, 2010 WI App 172 (recommended for publication); for Marks: Joel A. Mogren; Marks BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Ineffective Assistance – Inconsistent Defenses
Counsel’s choice to pursue potentially inconsistent defenses (self-defense; no involvement) was, in light of the “not uncommon practice of lawyers to argue inconsistent theories,” within the wide range of professionally competence assistance.
¶15 First,
Newly Discovered Evidence: Test – SVP Commitment – Revised Actuarial; Completeness Doctrine, § 901.07; Interest of Justice Review
State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally
¶14 In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the evidence is,
Sex Offender Registration Requirement Where Homeless
State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2010 WI App 163, review granted 3/16/11; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Dinkins BiC; State Resp.; Reply
A prisoner subject to sex offender registration requirement, § 301.45, isn’t subject to criminal penalty for failing, on impending release, to notify authorities of his intended “residence” where he will be homeless.
Exculpatory Evidence Preservation; Right to Inform Jury of Evidence Destruction
State v. Joshua Lashawn Munford, 2010 WI App 168 (recommended for publication); for Munford: Joseph L. Sommers; Munford BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Munford’s claim that police destruction of his van violated due process is rejected, because the van didn’t have apparent exculpatory value. His defense against the homicide charge was that someone else fired shots that went through the van and struck the victim who was on the street.
Confrontation: Forfeiture Doctrine – Witness Unavailability; Authentication – Telephone Recording; Appellate Jurisdiction
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)
The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.
¶39 Therefore,
Custodial Interrogation: Request for Counsel – Waiver of Rights – Invocation of Counsel – Assertion of Right to Silence
State v. Patrick E. Hampton, 2010 WI App 169 (recommended for publication); for Hampton: Michael S. Holzman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Custodial Interrogation – Request for Counsel
To invoke the 5th amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation, the suspect must assert the right unambiguously, something Hampton did not do.
¶30 Hampton alleges that detectives ignored him and continued to inappropriately question him five minutes into the July 20 interview,