On Point blog, page 107 of 133
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Read Discovery – Failure to Investigate Must Be Strategic
State v. James R. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Thiel: Bruce J. Rosen
Issue/Holding:
¶37. Turning to counsel’s performance, we first recognize that counsel’s failure to review certain portions of the discovery provided by the prosecution–especially Dr. Metzler’s medical reports–was deficient performance as a matter of law. In a felony case where the client potentially faces significant prison time,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Research Law
State v. James R. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Thiel: Bruce J. Rosen
Issue/Holding:
¶51. Third, counsel’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.11(3) reflects a failure either to research or correctly interpret relevant portions of the law. The circuit court found that counsel interpreted this statute as allowing the defense to prevent the State from presenting evidence of the complaining witness’s prior personal or medical history if the defense did not file a motion under § 972.11(3).
Defenses – Statute of Limitations – Support Arrearages, § 893.40 – Accrual upon Entry of Support Judgment
State v. Walter Junior Benjamin, 2003 WI 50, affirming 2002 WI App 89
For Hamilton: Robert A. Ramsdell
Issue/Holding:
¶3. Walter’s case raises questions about the application of statutes of limitations to child support collection actions. The issue presented is whether the State, as an assignee of Walter’s deceased former wife, filed a timely action to collect child support arrearages in 2000.
Constitutional Defenses – Bear Arms – Fundamental Right, Under Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 – Necessary Showing
State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass
For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski
Issue/Holding:
¶86. In the meantime, we must give effect to the constitutional right embodied in Article I, Section 25.39 A defendant who challenges on constitutional grounds a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon will be required to secure affirmative answers to the following legal questions before he or she is entitled to raise a constitutional defense.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Multiple Punishments, Single Prosecution, In General
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89, reversing 2002 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 715, 647 N.W.2d 390
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School, Criminal Appeals Project
Issue/Holding:
¶32. In sum, we conclude that the imposition of cumulative punishments from different statutes in a single prosecution for “the same offense” violates double jeopardy when the cumulative punishments are not intended by the legislature.
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – “Denny” Evidence
State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590); subsequent decision on remand, Miranda issue: State v. Knapp (II),
Enhancers — Multiple Enhancers — §§ 346.65(2), 939.62
State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Delaney: Joseph R. Cincotta
Issue/Holding:
¶1 … Specifically, Delaney asks this court to determine whether Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1999-2000) was properly applied to his already enhanced OWI offense under Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(c), based on the existence of a past non-OWI offense, so as to enhance Delaney’s penalty twice for count one of his judgment of conviction.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Battery, by Prisoner and Simple
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89, reversing 2002 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 715, 647 N.W.2d 390
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School, Criminal Appeals Project
Issue/Holding: The legislature did not intend to preclude cumulative punishments for both aggravated battery, § 940.10(6) and battery by prisoner, § 940.20(1), for the same conduct. ¶¶47-111.
Common Law Defenses – Causation, Homicide – “Year and a Day” Rule
State v. Waylon Picotte, 2003 WI 42, on certification
For Picotte: John T. Wasielewski
Issue: Whether conviction for homicide is barred because the victim did not die within a year and a day of infliction of the fatal injuries.
Holding:
¶5. We disagree with the circuit court and hold that the defendant’s conviction in this case is barred by the common-law year-and-a-day rule.
§ 941.23, Carrying concealed weapon – Facial Constitutionality, in Light of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25
State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether § 941.23 is facially unconstitutional as impermissibly infringing on the right to bear arms.
Holding: The constitutional right of an individual to bear arms, Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25, being “fundamental” in nature, ¶20, the question is whether § 941.23 “reasonably” restricts that right, which in turn requires balancing the interests involved.