On Point blog, page 37 of 53
Wisconsin Supreme Court addresses the standard for deciding competency to refuse medication
Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity
In an important case for lawyers handling ch. 51 cases, the supreme court concludes there was insufficient evidence to prove a person subject to a commitment order was incompetent to refuse medication. Along the way, the court provides a “detailed interpretation of the statutory language”
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to overrule State v. Shiffra, but divides on remedy “in this case”
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2013 WI 59 (per curiam), affirming, as modified, an unpublished court of appeals opinion; reconsideration granted, 2014 WI 16 (per curiam); Justices Prosser and Gableman not participating; case activity
(Note: On July 22, 2013, both Johnson and the state filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s original decision;
U.S. Supreme Court holds that a showing of “actual innocence” allows consideration of merits of habeas petition filed after expiration of time limit
McQuiggin v. Floyd Perkins, USSC No. 12-126, 5/28/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding Perkins v. McQuiggin, 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012)
In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995), and House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518 (2006), the Court held that a convincing showing of “actual innocence” enabled habeas petitioners to overcome a procedural bar to consideration of the merits of their constitutional claims.
U.S. Supreme Court: habeas petitioner’s procedural default may be excused if state rules do not offer defendants meaningful opportunity to present IAC claim on direct appeal
Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 11-10189, 5/28/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding 449 Fed. Appx. 145 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2011)
Last term in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), a case arising out of Arizona, the Court held that where a state’s rules of appellate procedure allowed a state prisoner to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim only on collateral review,
New trial in the interest of justice ordered for defendant who raised NGI defense
State v. Vicente Paul Vento, 2012AP1763-CR, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Invoking its discretionary reversal power, the court of appeals holds Vento is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice on the issue of his mental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 971.15 because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and based its verdict on speculative testimony from an expert:
¶28 We agree with Vento that there is a substantial probability that a new trial would produce a different result because he met his burden under Wis.
TPR — Failure to assume parental responsibility: special verdict questions; instruction that lack of opportunity and ability is not a defense. Abandonment: Leave to amend petition
Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background:
Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in January 2012, alleging failure to assume parental responsibility and six months of abandonment.
Misdemeanor probation period may not be increased under § 973.09(2)(b)2.
State v. Aaron S. Loos, 2012AP2154-CR, District 3, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Though Loos was convicted of one misdemeanor and one felony at the same time, the maximum one-year term of probation for the misdemeanor under § 973.09(2)(a)1r. could not be increased by one year under § 973.09(2)(b)2. That statute may be applied only to increase the maximum term of probation on a felony conviction,
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Sentencing based on inaccurate information is not structural error, but mistake about mandatory minimum penalty in this case was not harmless
State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2013 WI 38, affirming published court of appeals decision, 2012 WI App 46, 340 Wis. 2d 639, 813 N.W.2d 702; case activity
¶9 The question of law presented to this court is whether a circuit court’s imposition of a sentence using inaccurate information that the defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum five-year period of confinement is structural error or subject to the application of harmless error analysis….
Warrantless search of home was not justified under community caretaker doctrine
State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity
The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine:
¶37 …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering the apartment, addressing the apparent domestic situation, and making a reasonable assessment of the need for any further assistance or protection,
OWI — the penalty language of § 346.65(2)(am)6. does not require the court to impose a bifurcated sentence
State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2013 WI App 74, petition for review granted 11/21/13; reversed, 2014 WI 64, 7/15/14; case activity
Wisconsin Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)6. makes OWI 7th, 8th, or 9th a Class G felony, but also provides that “[t]he confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence imposed on the person under s. 973.01 shall be not less than 3 years.”