On Point blog, page 46 of 96

Circuit court properly exercised discretion in denying “new factor” time cut request

State v. David J. Lawrence, 2013AP796, District 4, 10/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court knew of Lawrence’s mental health diagnoses at sentencing, but after sentencing Lawrence was hospitalized after a psychological breakdown. (¶¶3-4). He requested sentence modification, arguing the court was not aware of all his diagnoses or his medication regimen. (¶5). Assuming that information was a “new factor,” the circuit court gave a reasoned explanation for why it declined to modify the sentence,

Read full article >

Court’s deviation from the exact language of immigration warning in § 971.08(1)(c) doesn’t entitle defendant to plea withdrawal

State v. Ali Mursal, 2013 WI App 125; case activity

Before accepting a defendant’s guilty or no contest plea the court is required to advise the defendant there may be immigration consequences. Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). While that statute prescribes a text for the required warning—complete with quotation marks—the court of appeals holds in this case that a judge’s failure to repeat that language verbatim is not by itself grounds for plea withdrawal.

Read full article >

State loses restitution appeal; proof of damages and nexus to crime is just too skimpy

State v. Deris Huley, 2013AP682, 9/26/13 (1-judge ineligible for publication); case activity

It’s not often the court of appeals rules against the State.

 Huley pled no contest to a misdemeanor hit and run of an attended vehicle, as a repeater. See §346.74(5)(a).  The State sought restitution in the amount of $4,064.83 for the victim’s personal injuries.  Noting that “restitution is the rule and not the exception” and that “the victim need only show that the defendant’s actions were the precipitating cause of the injury and that [the injury] was the natural consequence of the actions,” the court of appeals nevertheless affirmed the denial of restitution. 

Read full article >

Lack of colloquy regarding waiver of counsel in prior OWI case does not make prima facie showing for collateral attack

State v. Glen G. Bowe, 2013AP238-CR, District 3, 9/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The lack of any colloquy regarding Bowe’s waiver of his right to counsel when he pled in his prior OWI case does not by itself make the prima facie showing necessary for a collateral attack on the prior conviction because State v. Ernst,

Read full article >

Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to demand speedy trial, communicate with defendant, and impeach the victim. Sentencing — unduly harsh sentence.

State v. Jerry Lee Carson, 2012AP2616-CR, District 1, 9/17/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel

Carson, convicted of second degree recklessly endangering safety, claimed his trial lawyer was ineffective on various grounds. The court of appeals holds counsel was not ineffective for failing to:

  • Demand a speedy trial. Carson was not prejudiced by the delay beyond the statutory speedy trial deadlines.
Read full article >

Another unpublished decision holds enhancer time may be used for the extended supervision portion of an enhanced misdemeanor sentence

State v. Emmit L. Groce, Jr., 2013AP844-CR, District 1, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Groce was convicted of criminal damage to property as a repeat offender under § 939.62(1)(a) and given a bifurcated sentence consisting of one year of confinement in prison and one year of extended supervision. (¶¶2-3). He later requested a sentence modification under State v. Gerondale,

Read full article >

Restitution for theft may include items defendant denies stealing

State v. Deborah A. Schicker, 2013AP651-CR, District 2, 8/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Schicker pleaded guilty to a single count of theft. Of the multiple items listed as stolen in the complaint, she admitted to taking only the two items recovered before she was charged. (¶¶2-3). After a restitution hearing she was ordered to pay for the loss of the unrecovered items as well as for another item (a bracelet) not even listed in the complaint.

Read full article >

OWI — collateral attack on prior conviction; awareness of minimum penalty

State v. Jaime M. Salomon, 2013AP577-CR, District 2, 8/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Salomon collaterally attacked his second OWI conviction under State v. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, 283 Wis. 2d 300, 699 N.W.2d 92, arguing his waiver of counsel in the case was invalid because he was not aware of the minimum mandatory penalty for the offense. The transcript of the plea hearing in the prior case shows Salomon admitted to having read the complaint,

Read full article >

Sentencing — exercise of discretion in denying eligibility for ERP

State v. Brandon M. Pokey, 2012AP2412-CR, District 2, 8/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The sentencing court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it made Pokey, who was convicted of armed robbery of a bank, ineligible for the Earned Release Program. At sentencing the court based its decision on all of the required sentencing factors, not just on the seriousness of the offense,

Read full article >

Yet another take on how to structure bifurcated sentences for an enhanced misdemeanor

State v. Gabriel Griffin, 2012AP2631-CR, District 1, 7/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Agreeing with State v. Gerondale, 2009AP1237-CR and 2009AP1238-CR (Wis. Ct. App Nov. 3, 2009) (unpublished), and State v. Ash, No. 2012AP381-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2012) (unpublished), that there is a conflict in § 973.01 which affects the structure of enhanced misdemeanor sentences,

Read full article >