On Point: A. Type pf PCM

Shelly J. v. Leslie W., 2011AP753, District 4, 7/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shelly J.:  Amy J. Lamerand Zott; case activity

Shelly’s motion to reopen her TPR judgment, 7 years after she successfully petitioned for voluntary termination, was untimely under the 1-year deadline imposed by § 806.07(1)(a) and (c), nor did she show “extraordinary circumstances” under subs. (h). As to her claim that the judgment was void under subs.

State v. David J. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Balliette’s pro se § 974.06 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, was insufficiently pleaded to require an evidentiary hearing.

Unless you’re an appellate specialist or a masochist –

On Point is very pleased to present this guest post discussion of Skinner v. Switzer by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. Professor Garrett’s most recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” was reviewed by in the New York Times Sunday Book Review 5/26/11.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled another boundary dispute about what lies inside and what lies outside of habeas corpus today in Skinner v.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Retroactive Application of Case Law, on Collateral Review

Narvaez’s federal ACCA enhancement, imposed in 2003, is now unsupportable in light of subsequently-decided Supreme Court authority (Begay v. U.S.; Chambers v. U.S.). He may therefore seek relief against the sentencing enhancement via 28 U.S.C. § 2255: the case law development worked a change in “substantive liability”

State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant.

¶11      We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166,

State v. Alan Keith Burns, 2011 WI 22, affirming unpublished decision; for Burns: David R. Karpe; case activity

The court rejects Burns’s claim for a new trial in the interest of justice premised on three grounds: 1. Burns was unable to cross-examine the complainant on her implication that he took her virginity; 2. evidence of prior sexual assaults of the complainant by his father,

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

State v. Quentin J. Louis, 2009AP2502-CR, District 3, 3/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Louis: Edward J. Hunt; amicus, Wis. Innocence Project: Keith A. Findley, Peter Shawn Moreno; case activity

Trial court grant of new trial in interest of justice upheld as proper exercise of discretion:  the issue in controversy wasn’t fully and fairly tried, given failure to adduce at trial medical testimony that the deceased baby’s injuries didn’t result from shaken baby syndrome.

State v. Lawrence Williams, 2010AP1028, District 1, 3/8/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 220 Wis.2d 458, 583 N.W.2d 845 (Ct.App. 1998)

Williams fails to provide a “sufficient reason” to overcome the serial litigation bar on his § 974.06 motion following direct appeal. He posits ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective in various respects.

Henry W. Skinner v. Switzer, USSC No. 09-9000, 3/7/11

A convicted state prisoner may utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to seek DNA testing of crime-scene evidence.

When may a state prisoner, complaining of unconstitutional state action, pursue a civil rights claim under §1983, and when is habeas corpus the prisoner’s sole remedy? …

We summarized the relevant case law most recently in Wilkinson v.