On Point: Important Posts

State v. Tyrus Lee Cooper, 2016AP375, review of a per curiam opinion granted 12/12/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When defendant’s counsel has engaged in serious professional misconduct leading up to the trial date affecting defendant’s meaningful participation in his own defense, does that provide a sufficient reason to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing?
2. Did the the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing without an evidentiary record to support substantial prejudice to the State?

State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald, 2018AP1296-CR, petition for bypass granted 12/12/18, circuit court order vacated, 2019 WI 69; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

Whether the involuntary medication provisions of Wis. Stat. §971.14 are unconstitutional because they do not comport with Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)?

Whether the circuit court’s Order of Commitment for Involuntary Treatment violated Fitzgerald’s constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process?

State v. Alexander M. Schultz, 2019 WI App 3, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Addressing an issue of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that to ascertain the scope of the double jeopardy bar against a successive prosecution when the charging language of the prior case is ambiguous, a court must consider, in light of the entire record of the prior case, how a reasonable person familiar with the facts and circumstances of a particular case would understand that charging language. Applying the test here, the court rules Schultz’s prosecution wasn’t barred.

State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez & Amy J. Rodriguez, 2019 WI App 2, petition for review granted 4/9/19, affirmed by a divided court, 2019 WI 101; Lopez case activity; Rodriquez case activity).

Lopez and Rodriguez were each charged with a single count being party to the crime of felony retail theft of more than $500 but less than $5,000 based on seven separate incidents occurring over two weeks at the same store. Each separate incident involved the theft of less than $500. (¶2). Can the state aggregate the incidents into a single felony count under § 971.36, or does that create a duplicity problem (charging two or more offenses in a single count) that must be avoided by charging seven separate misdemeanors? Aggregate away! sayeth the court of appeals.

On November 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67 (juvenile court’s waiver into adult court binds all future courts)

On October 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63 (defendant consented to search of his computer and had no expectation of privacy in files put on P2P file sharing network)

State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 2018 WI 106, 11/16/18, on certification from the court of appeals; 2017AP208; case activity (including briefs)

The police thought Pinder was probably the culprit in a string of burglaries, so they applied for, and got, a warrant to attach a GPS device to his car. They did not actually do the attaching, though, until 10 days after they got the warrant. This seems to run afoul of Wis. Stat. § 968.15, which together with surrounding provisions defines, authorizes and regulates the issuance of search warrants. Specifically, it says a warrant not executed within five days of issuance is “void.”

State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2017AP1202-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 11/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1.   Is this Court’s holding in Avila–that it is “not reasonably likely” that the standard JI-140 reduces the State’s burden of proof–good law; or should it be overruled by the Court on the grounds that it is rebutted by empirical evidence?

State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)

At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67, petition for review granted 4/9/19; affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Hinkle, a 16-year-old boy, was charged as a juvenile in two different counties for a car theft and police chase.  In Milwaukee County, the juvenile court waived him into adult court. So, did the Fond du Lac court have to treat him as an adult too?