On Point: A. Type pf PCM

State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2011 WI App 22; for Kletzien: James A. Rebholz; case activity; Kletzien BiC; State Resp.; Reply

In a prior appeal, Kletzien unsuccessfully challenged denial of postconviction discovery,  2008 WI App 182. (See, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303,

State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2009AP2288, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Brief

¶14     Escalona-Naranjo requires that a defendant raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion or in the defendant’s direct appeal.  See id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185.  A defendant may not pursue claims in a subsequent appeal that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or direct appeal unless the defendant provides a “‘sufficient reason’” for not raising the claims previously. 

7th circuit court of appeals decision, on habeas review of summary order of Wisconsin court of appeals

Habeas – Procedural Default & No-Merit Report

Johnson’s failure to assert an ineffective assistance of (trial) counsel claim in response to his appellate attorney’s no-merit report did not procedurally default that claim for purposes of subsequent collateral attack. The court follows Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.

Dane Co. DHS v. Tierra M., 2010AP1648, District 4, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tierra M.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects the idea that Tierra M.’s termination of parental rights wasn’t “fully tried” under the theory that the subsequently decided Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55 requires departmental services relevant to implied as well as explicitly ordered conditions for the children’s return.

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling

Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely.

The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different and should yield a different conclusion. First, the obvious: subject to highly exceptional circumstances,

State v. Dimitri Henley, 2010 WI 97, on certification; prior history: unpublished decision; related: disqualification litigation; for Henley: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, Byron Lichstein; Amicus: SPD

“Wisconsin circuit courts do not have the inherent authority to order a new trial in the interest of justice when a case is not before the court under a proper procedural mechanism,”

State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶4   We conclude, following Wis. Stat. § 974.06, that a defendant is not required to file a response to a no-merit report. This means he is not required to raise issues in response to a no-merit report.

Question Presented:

May a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a claim in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or is such a claim cognizable only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

Docket: 09-9000

• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Scotusblog analysis notes,

decision below: unpublished (2009AP118); for Burns: David R. Karpe

Issue:

Is the Appellant entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice where (a) the circuit court banned the Appellant from presenting evidence that the victim’s post-assaultive behavior and loss of virginity was due to her having been sexually assaulted by her grandfather rather than the Appellant, and (b) the state argued that there was no other explanation for the victim’s behavior than that the Appellant was guilty?

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Custody Requirement, sec. 974.06

¶7        However, Olson is barred from collaterally attacking his criminal conviction under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 because he is no longer “‘in custody under sentence of a court.’”  See State v. Theoharopoulos, 72 Wis. 2d 327, 329, 240 N.W.2d 635 (1976) (quoting § 974.06 and recognizing that circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion for postconviction relief brought under § 974.06 if the defendant has completed his sentence).