On Point blog, page 5 of 8
Failure to present evidence of alternative sources for child’s sexual knowledge wasn’t ineffective
State v. Bryanntton A. Brown, 2013AP1332-CR, District 1, 6/24/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present certain evidence that the complainant in Brown’s child sexual assault prosecution may have obtained her sexual knowledge from watching TV and movies and talking to her older sister. Nor was trial counsel ineffective for not taking steps to mitigate the impact of a letter Brown purportedly wrote to Carson, a fellow jail inmate, in which Brown admitted the charges. Finally, the circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion.
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.
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State v. Donald W. Maier, 2013AP1391-CR, District 4, 5/8/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity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.
Petition for Review to Watch: State v. Mark S. Rigdon, 2013AP200-CR
Issues Presented:
1. Has the court of appeals effectively overturned this court’s precedent recognizing undue harshness as a ground for sentence modification?
2. Is the time ripe for this court to put teeth in the McCleary-Gallion mandate that the appellate courts ensure that sentences – particularly sentences in the highest range – are rational and explainable?
Court of Appeals opinion: State v. Mark S. Rigdon,
Resentencing judge was not vindictive, did not rely on inaccurate information, and did not impose excessive sentence
State v. Quincy Lashawn Baker, 2013AP242-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Baker was given a resentencing hearing based on inaccurate information about the maximum periods of confinement and supervision for the crime of conviction (felony murder). (¶¶4-5). At the resentencing hearing before a different judge, the state argued Baker’s profane outburst at the conclusion of his original sentencing hearing showed a lack of remorse.
Does SCOTUS decision holding that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is unconstitional apply retroactively?
The Sentencing Law and Policy blog (an affiliate of the law professor blogs network) tees up the issue nicely. Their post is pasted in below.
When and how will SCOTUS take up Miller retroactivity issues?
The question in the title of this post is promoted by this local piece reporting on reactions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision last week (reported here) that its state teens given mandatory LWOP before the US Supreme Court’s Miller ruling should not get any retroactive benefit from that decision.
Freddie Lee Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882, cert. granted 10/21/13
Whether the Florida scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia.
Lower court opinion: Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. 2012)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), held that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to execute a person who is found to be mentally retarded.
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.
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.
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2;
State v. Daniel Buchanan, 2011AP830-CR, District 1, 10/30/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2
The prior-consistent statement rule allows substantive admissibility of an out-of-court statement if: “(1) the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement; (2) the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony; and (3) the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive,”