On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9335, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.
Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))
Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,
Enhancers – § § 343.307(1), 346.65(2)(am)3., OWI – Jury Determination and Apprendi
State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (Arentz; Hendricks)
Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz and Hendricks raise the same arguments: the elements of the underlying civil forfeiture must be proved to the jury beyond reasonable at the criminal trial;
Sufficiency of Evidence: Standard of Review – Possession with Intent to Deliver; Right to Jury Trial – Apprendi – Harmless Error
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity
Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence
¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence are as consistent with innocence as with guilt.”
Fines Come Within Apprendi, Jury Determination Required for Determination of Facts Supporting Fine Beyond Statutory Maximum
Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010)
Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of up to $50,000 per day in violation.
OWI – Penalty Provision – Enhancement – Proof (and Apprendi)
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05
For Matke: James B. Connell
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Matke also contends that the trial court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2), which is now ours as well, violates due process because it permits the court to sentence him for a sixth OMVWI without requiring the State to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he had five prior OMVWI convictions.
Enhanced Penalties — Proof — Uncertified Judgment of Prior Conviction
State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107, reconsideration denied, 2002 WI 119, reversing unpublished opinion
For Saunders: Beth Ermatinger Hanan
Issue: Whether an uncertified copy of the prior judgment of conviction may serve as part of the proof requirement of a repeater allegation that is not personally admitted by the defendant.
Holding: In the absence of the defendant’s personal admission to the prior conviction(s),