On Point blog, page 2 of 3
State v. Richard H. Harrison, 2013AP298-CR, petition for review granted 5/22/14
On review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the circuit court’s violation of Harrison’s right to substitution under § 971.20 deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over the case and render the judgment void, or can the violation be deemed to be harmless error?
Substitution of judge — § 971.20(4),(5); reassignment of original judge does not make the judge “new” for substitution purposes. Admission of evidence — limiting the playing of audio recordings. Armed robbery, § 943.32 — sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Keith M. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87; case activity
Substitution of judge; “new” judge under § 971.20(5)
When a case is reassigned from the original judge to a second judge and then reassigned again back to the first judge, the first judge is the “original” judge assigned to the case under § 971.20(4), not a “new” judge under § 971.20(5). Therefore, a motion to substitute the original judge had to be filed before the arraignment,
Ineffective Assistance – Sentencing; Failure to Request Substitution
State v. Miller X. Lark-Holland, 2011AP791-CR, District 1, 2/28/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lark-Holland: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
¶7 Lark-Holland’s first complaint is that his trial lawyer did not emphasize the mitigating factor that he said he was forced into committing the robbery, and also made several comments that he says undercut his character. … These comments, however, when read in full context,
Judicial Substitution, § 971.20(5) – Request Must Be Made before Determination of Guilt
State v. William Allen Wisth, 2009 WI App 53, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Wisth: Jeremy Perri, SPD, MilwaukeeAppellate
Issue/Holding: Defendant not entitled to request substitution of judge assigned to sentencing following revocation; § 971.20(5) is limited to pre-guilt phases:
¶14 We conclude that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 971.20(5) is that substitution is permitted only prior to trial. When the issue of guilt or lack of guilt is resolved,
Mandamus — Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,
Writs – Mandamus – Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,
Judicial Substitution – Delinquency, § 938.29(1)(m) – Review by Chief Judge
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding: The chief judge has authority to review denial of a substitution request in a delinquency proceeding, under §§ 938.29(1)(m) and 801.58(2). (Because § 801.58(2) is the more specific provision, it “applies when the juvenile’s request for substitution is denied,” ¶9; it plainly provides for “review[] by the chief judge of the judicial administrative district.”)
¶10.
Judicial Substitution – TPR, § 48.29
Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57
For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder
Issue/Holding:
¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which allows a request “either before or during the plea hearing ….”
Judicial – Substitution – § 971.20(5) – Timeliness of Request, Newly Assigned Judge
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams
Issue/Holding: Defendant’s withdrawal of his NGI plea prevented him from later invoking the right of judicial substitution provided by § 971.20(5), where a new judge was subsequently assigned and no prior right to substitution invoked.
The court’s analysis doesn’t track the actual language of the statute – “Because Norwood’s plea withdrawal constitutes a ‘proceeding’ within the meaning of § 971.20(5),
Judicial Substitution – Review of Denial, by Writ
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,