On Point

Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S.Ct. 1857, 599 U.S. __ (June 22, 2023); Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

The Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, holds that the savings clause in 28 U.S.C.  2255(e) bars a prisoner from using an intervening change in the interpretation of a federal criminal statute to circumvent AEDPA’s restrictions on successive Section 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under Section 2241.

State v. Nicholas Anthony Stilwell, 2022AP1839, 7/20/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case has facts remarkably like those of State v. Cundy, a recommended-for-publication case the court of appeals decided the week before. Police received a report of a hit-and-run of a parked vehicle, and learned the truck that did the hitting and running was registered to Stilwell. They went to Stilwell’s apartment and found the truck parked nearby. They buzzed Stilwell and he answered the door. They eventually entered the apartment and determined, including by the use of a PBT, that Stilwell was intoxicated, though he denied having driven his truck. They cuffed him, told him he was being “detained,” and took him to the crash scene, where after about 30 minutes they secured other evidence that Stilwell had driven his truck; they thus arrested him.

State v. Gregory L. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

A person called police and said they’d seen a particular vehicle back into a parked car at idle speed and then drive off. About 40 minutes later, an officer arrived at Cundy’s house, knowing that the suspect vehicle was registered to Cundy and finding it in the driveway. The officer knocked on the front door and eventually spoke with Cundy, who remained inside the threshold. At some point the officer declined to let Cundy end the conversation, and a bit later he ordered Cundy out, drove him in his squad to the accident scene, and had the witness identify him. The officer then returned Cundy to his home, where after some further discussion, he was arrested.

State v. William J. Buffo, 2022AP1803-4-CR, District IV, 7/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs available)

In another messy pro se appeal, COA overlooks the State’s failure to file a response brief and affirms the circuit court’s “evidently correct” decision.

Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023).

In a case highlighting the changed legal landscape for firearm regulation, an en banc panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that the federal government cannot ban a nonviolent felon from lawfully possessing a firearm.

State v. M.H., 2023AP732, District I, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

M.H. raises two challenges to a circuit court order terminating her parental rights. Under an exceedingly deferential standard of review, both claims fail.

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, District II, 7/28/23, petition for review granted 12/12/23; reversed 7/5/24; 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In a Chapter 51 case with troubling due process implications, COA is compelled to affirm by virtue of what it believes to be binding precedent.

State v. Ashley Rae Baker, 2022AP1587-CR, District II, 1-judge decision, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

The Fourth Amendment protects against guilt by association by requiring probable cause to arrest or search to be specifically linked to the individual defendant. See State v. Riddle, 192 Wis. 2d 470, 478, 531 N.W.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593 (1948). That probable cause exists to arrest one vehicle occupant does not mean probable cause exists to arrest another.

C.T.L. v. M.L.K., 2023AP402, District III, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

The court of appeals confronts two alleged errors stemming from M.L.K.’s TPR jury trial and affirms based on harmless error.

United States v. Zackey Rahimi, U.S.S.C. No. 22-915, cert. granted 6/30/23; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

In a case with ramifications for Wisconsin law, SCOTUS has agreed to determine the extent of its recent decision in Bruen, which mandated a new form of historical analysis for firearm restrictions impinging on citizens’ 2nd Amendment right to possess guns for self-defense.