On Point blog, page 92 of 262
Denial of plea withdrawal affirmed based on trial counsel’s notes and practice indicating that she discussed crime elements with client
State v. Dionte J. Nowels, 2018AP1171-CR, 1/8/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nowels pled guilty to hit and run. He later sought plea withdrawal because during his colloquy the trial court failed to state 2 of the crime elements that the State would be required to prove at trial. The trial court agreed with him on this point, so for the plea withdrawal hearing the burden shifted to the State to prove that Nowles knew and understood those elements when he pled.
Defense win! Trial court erred in denying a Machner hearing and applying the wrong prejudice test to IAC claim
State v. Victor Yancey, Jr., 2018AP802-CR, 1/8/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Stormy applause for Godfrey & Kahn who took this appeal pro bono and then won it! The court of appeals held that Yancey alleged a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty and was entitled to a Machner hearing. It also held that the trial court incorrectly held that to establish prejudice Yancey had to show a “reasonable probability that he would have been able to mount a successful challenge to the State’s evidence at a trial.”
Dad held to have consented to the termination of his parental rights despite misunderstanding the outcome
Walworth County D.H.S&S v. A.J.S., 2018AP1562, 1/2/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
On Point doesn’t have access to TPR briefs. But judging from the court of appeals opinion, A.J.S. understood that if he voluntarily agreed to terminate his parental rights to his daughter under §48.41, then his mother would become her adoptive parent. Shortly before the hearing A.J.S. was surprised to learn that this outcome was not guaranteed. And, indeed, it did not come to pass.
Challenges to arrest, search warrants rejected
State v. Eric R. Burrows, 2018AP770-CR, District 2, 12/26/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Burrows sent threatening and harassing letters to E.W., arranged inflammatory and derogatory voicemail messages on her phone, and delivered a baby python to her apartment. He argues the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for stalking and to search his car and other property. The court of appeals disagrees.
Court of appeals sacks newly-discovered evidence and other claims to affirm homicide conviction
State v. Danny L. Wilber, 2016AP260, 12/26/18, District 1 (not recommend for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“This case involves a dual tragedy: the death of one innocent man and the conviction of another.” (Initial Brief at 1). Not one of the many eyewitnesses to this homicide, which occurred during a large house party, saw Wilber shoot Diaz, the deceased. In fact, Diaz was shot in the back of the head and fell face first toward Wilber, not away from him. The State’s theory was that the shot spun Diaz around causing him to fall toward the shooter. It offered no expert to prove that this was possible.
Failure to present expert on interrogation tactics and defendant’s suggestibility held not prejudicial
State v. Dedric Earl Hamilton, Jr., 2018AP200-CR, 12/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Hamilton of 1st-degree sexual assault of his 8-year old niece. On appeal, he argued that: (1) he was he entitled to a hearing on his postconviction motion in which he alleged, with the support of two experts, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance when she failed either to challenge the voluntariness of his Miranda waiver and subsequent confession or to present evidence calling its reliability into question at trial; and (2) he was entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice.
If license suspension to collect fine can’t exceed one year it means suspension can’t exceed one year
County of Lafayette v. Ian D. Humphrey, 2018AP481, District 4, 12/20/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
After Humphrey didn’t pay his fine for operating after suspension the circuit court suspended his operating privileges under § 345.47(1)(b). Six months later Humphrey agreed to a payment plan, so the court withdrew the suspension. But Humphrey stopped paying again, so the court imposed another one year suspension of operating privileges. (¶¶2-3). Can the circuit court do that?
No prejudice, no Machner hearing
State v. Sadiq Imani, 2018AP596-CR, District 1, 12/18/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Imani doesn’t get a Machner hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the court of appeals concludes the record shows counsel’s alleged errors didn’t prejudice Imani.
The postconviction DNA testing statute: hard to understand and harder to satisfy
State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2017AP2452-CR, 12/11/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2017, conservative activists on SCOW overruled a 12-year-old, unanimous opinion in order to overwrite the plain language of §974.07(7), Wisconsin’s postconviction DNA testing statute. They made it virtually impossible for a defendant to get this type of testing. See State v. Denny, 2017 WI 17 and our post about it. This court of appeals decision toes the line. It may be summed as: Let the conviction stand.
Admission of paperwork regarding blood draw wasn’t prejudicial
State v. Kristy L. Malnory, 2018AP216-CR, District 4, 12/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At Malnory’s trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol content, her lawyer failed to object to the admission of the “Blood/Urine Analysis” form completed at the time of her blood draw. She argues this was deficient performance because the form is testimonial, and admitting it without the testimony of the person who completed it violates her confrontation rights. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but even if that’s true there was no prejudice.