On Point blog, page 18 of 96
Sentencing court didn’t violate defendant’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination
State v. Marquis D. Walls, 2017AP1600-CR, District 1, 8/14/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Walls’s argument that the circuit court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by pressuring him to admit guilt at sentencing and then used his failure to do so to impose a harsher sentence.
COA: No IAC for plea advice or lack of plea withdrawal; also no new factor
State v. Terrell Antwain Kelly, 2017AP1584, 7/31/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kelly was charged with both a long-ago second-degree sexual assault of a child and several domestic violence counts (the victim was the same). The state offered him a choice between two plea deals: one in which he would plead to the sexual assault with the DV counts dismissed and read in, and one in which he would plead to the DV counts with the sexual assault dismissed and read in.
Circuit court properly denied duplicate sentence credit on consecutive sentence
State v. Terry Terrell Anderson, 2017AP2165-CR, District 1, 7/31/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Anderson sought pretrial custody credit against sentences that were ordered to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. Because the time in custody was credited to the previously imposed sentence, he’s not entitled to the same credit against the later-imposed consecutive sentences.
Plea hearing courts don’t have to inform defendants about the mandatory DNA surcharge
State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46; case activity (including briefs)
In light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s May 2018 decisions in State v. Muldrow, 2018 WI 52, 381 Wis. 2d 492, 912 N.W.2d 74, and State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373, the court of appeals now holds:
Defendant not entitled to sentence credit for charges dismissed but not read in
State v. Demario D. Fleming, 2017AP1851-CR, District 1, 7/17/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Applying its recent decision in State v. Piggue, 2016 WI App 13, 366 Wis. 2d 605, 875 N.W.2d 663, the court of appeals rejects Fleming’s request for sentence credit for time he spent in custody on charges that were dismissed, but not read in, as part of a plea agreement.
SCOW to decide whether one mistakenly released from jail gets credit
State v. Zachary S. Friedlander, 2017AP1337, petition granted 7/10/2018; review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from petition for review):
When, as here, an offender is mistakenly released from prison or jail, is the offender “in custody” under § 973.155(1) and Magnuson such that sentence credit should be granted for this time spent at liberty?
SCOW: Warrantless blood draw was okay; using refusal as aggravating sentencing factor was not
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 7/3/18, reversing in part and remanding an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court holds there were exigent circumstances that allowed police to draw blood from Dalton without a warrant after he refused to consent to a blood draw. But a majority of the court also holds that the sentencing judge erred by explicitly imposing a harsher sentence on Dalton because he refused to consent to the blood draw.
COA says trial court didn’t sentence on improper factors
State v. Dion Lashay Byrd, 2017AP1968, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Byrd was convicted of making a bomb threat to the Fox 6 TV station in Milwaukee. He claims the sentencing court relied on two improper factors in imposing the maximum sentence for this Class I felony. First, he says the court coerced him into making self-incriminating statements during his sentencing allocution–statements that could not be used against him at sentencing under the Fifth Amendment. Second, he contends the court should not have based its sentencing decision on its stated dissatisfaction with the statutory maximum.
DOC may collect restitution from inmate even after a sentence has expired
State ex rel. Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)
The Department of Corrections has the authority to take certain funds from an inmate’s account to pay the restitution ordered in a case even though the inmate has finished serving the sentence in that case.
SCOTUS to decide whether Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states
Tyson Timbs v. Indiana, USSC 17-1091, certiorari granted 6/18/18
Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.