On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW: Defendants at 2nd grade level, abandoned by counsel, must research and apply law pro se
State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2017AP880-W, 2019 WI 110, affirming a court of appeals unpublished memorandum opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Two weeks ago, we posted “SCOW holds defendants abandoned by counsel to same standards as licensed lawyers,” calling State v. Pope “the most absurd decision this term (still time for worse).” Behold an even more absurd decision: even teenagers who read at 2nd grade level are held to the same standard as licensed lawyers. And, sadly, there’s still time for worse.
Defense win! SCOW says the court of appeals can’t deny a habeas petition ex parte based on laches
State ex rel. Ezequiel Lopez Quintero v. Dittmann, 2019 WI 58, reversing and remanding a court of appeals memorandum opinion, case activity (including briefs)
Go Remington Center for the 5-2 win in SCOW! The court of appeals dismissed R.C.’s habeas petition ex parte because it did not allege why Lopez Quintero waited 9 years to file it in violation of State ex rel. Smalley v. Morgan, 211 Wis. 2d 795, 565 N.W.2d 805 (Ct. App. 1997). This overrules Smalley and holds that a habeas petitioner need not allege timeliness in his petition.
SCOW to decide whether laches deprives prisoner of right to appeal
State ex rel. Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson, 2017AP880, review of an unpublished court of appeals order granted 5/14/19; case activity
Issue (from the petition for review):
Whether a criminal defendant who was denied a direct appeal and consequently was also deprived of counsel on appeal due to his trial counsel’s failure to file a notice of intent was properly denied habeas corpus relief based on the State’s assertion of a laches defense.
SCOW to review dismissal of habeas petitions based on laches
State ex rel. Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittman, 2018AP203-W, petition for review of a memorandum opinion granted 6/11/18; case activity
Issue (from the petition for review)
Can the court of appeals apply an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice and deny ex parte a sufficiently pled petition for writ of habeas corpus solely for untimeliness, under Wis. Stat. § 809.51?
Collateral-Attack Procedure: Habeas (Knight Petition), Laches Bar – Serial Litigation Bar, Previously-Litigated Issue
State v. Jerred Renard Washington / Jerred Renard Washington v. State, 2012 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); case activity (974.06); case activity (writ)
Habeas (Knight Petition) – Laches
Following his plea-based conviction in 1997, Washington’s retained counsel filed a postconviction 809.30 motion in 1998. Counsel did not file a notice of appeal, however, after the motion was denied. Then, in 2009,
(State) Habeas Procedure — Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel — Laches Bar
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶28 Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).