On Point blog, page 41 of 95
State v. Danny Alexander, 2013AP843-CR, petition for review granted 6/12/14
On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the inclusion in the PSI of statements Alexander made to his probation agent, and the trial court’s consideration of the statements at sentencing, violate Alexander’s right against self-incrimination?
SCOW: Circuit court’s “morning after” sentencing regrets skirt Double Jeopardy violation
State v. Jacqueline Robinson, 2014 WI 35, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
From the majority opinion, this looks like an open and shut case. When sentencing Robinson, the trial judge said he misunderstood the sentence she had received in another matter. One day later, he recalled the case and increased the sentence. No double jeopardy violation here, says the majority, Robinson could not yet have had a legitimate expectation of finality in her sentence. The 28-page concurrence and 20-page dissent suggest this case isn’t so simple.
Court of appeals clarifies Harris rule that court must impose maximum sentence before applying repeater penalty ehancer
State v. Adam W. Miller, 2013AP2218; 6/5/14; District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The court of appeals holds that a circuit court may apply the § 939.62(1)(c) penalty enhancer to increase Miller’s term of initial confinement beyond the maximum prescribed by law without first imposing the maximum term of imprisonment, as in the maximums for both initial confinement and extended supervision.
Challenge to factual basis for restitution order rebuffed
State v. Patrick L. Hibl, 2013AP2723-CR, District 2, 6/4/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting challenges to a restitution order, the court of appeals holds that the evidence in the record established a nexus between the crime Hibl was convicted of and the victim’s loss and that the circuit court took account of his ability to pay.
SCOTUS: Using bright-line cutoff IQ score to determine intellectual disability violates Eighth Amendment
Freddie Lee Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882, May 27, 2014, reversing Hall v. State, 109 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2012); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
Because “intellectual disability is a condition, not a number,” and an IQ score is an approximation, not a final and infallible assessment of intellectual functioning, the Supreme Court invalidates Florida’s bright-line rule that a defendant is not intellectually disabled—and thus may be executed—if he has never scored below 70 on an IQ test.
SCOW: Circuit courts must decide expunction at sentencing
State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 5/23/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Section 973.015 provides that a circuit court “may order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence . . .” SCOW now clarifies that a court must decide expunction at sentencing. Circuit court practices varied, so this decision clarifies the law and sets the stage for (possibly) a bigger battle over Wisconsin’s expunction statute.
Police didn’t violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment in taking statement of defendant cited for forfeiture offense
State v. Thaddeus M. Lietz, 2013AP1283-CR, District 3, 5/20/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Leitz’s statements to police were not obtained in violation of either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, so the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.
Stalking statute was not unconstitutional as applied to defendant; letters on which stalking convictions were based constituted a “true threat”
State v. Donald W. Maier, 2013AP1391-CR, District 4, 5/8/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The First Amendment did not preclude prosecuting Maier for stalking based on letters he sent because the letters constituted a “true threat” and thus were not protected speech.
SCOTUS: Surrendering collateral to fraudulently obtained loan is not a return of property entitling defendant to offset of restitution under MVRA
Robers v. United States, USSC No. 12-9012, 5/5/14, affirming United States v. Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and case commentary); On Point’s previous coverage.
Where a defendant is ordered to pay restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), the amount of restitution may be reduced by the value of “any part of the property that is returned” to the victim. The Supreme Court holds that a a defendant convicted of fraudulently obtaining a loan does not return part of the property to the defrauded lender when the lender takes title to the collateral securing the loan. Therefore, restitution is not reduced by the fair market value of the collateral at the time the lender took title.
Federal racketeering conviction counts as prior drug offense under § 961.41(3g)(c)
State v. Rogelio Guarnero, 2014 WI App 56, petition for review granted 11/14/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 72; case activity: 2013AP1753-CR; 2013AP1754-CR
Guarnero’s conviction for violating the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was a conviction for a crime “under a statute … relating to controlled substances,” and therefore qualified as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender enhancement provision of § 961.41(3g)(c), because the predicate acts of racketeering involved, among other things, controlled substance offenses.