On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Taylor continues what the supreme court began in State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64:  Dismantling by implication the well-established Bangert procedures and creating new ways for trial courts to avoid evidentiary hearings on plea withdrawal motions.

Taylor’s motion clearly established enough to get an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. (¶75). So why didn’t he get one?

State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a lawyer. (¶12). Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the invocation of the right to counsel would mean the police had to cease interrogation unless Lonkoski reinitiated the interview.

In the Matter of State v. Michael Buchanan: State ex rel. Office of State Public Defender v. Wis. Court of Appeals, District IV, 2013 WI 31, on review of petition for supervisory writ; case activity

In an important decision for all lawyers who handle criminal cases in the state appellate courts, the supreme court affirms that counsel for the defendant and the state do not need permission from a court to use,

Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, reversing court of appeals summary order; case activity

¶3        We conclude, and the circuit court has acknowledged, that it erroneously exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment finding that grounds existed to terminate Mable K.’s parental rights after barring her attorney from offering additional evidence. It also erred when it granted the default judgment before taking evidence sufficient to establish the grounds alleged in the amended petitions.

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2013 WI 23, affirming 2012 WI App 10; case activity

Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible as rebuttal evidence

The trial court excluded the state from presenting fingerprint evidence in its case-in-chief because the state failed to properly disclose the evidence under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(g). But after Novy testified, the court allowed the state to put the evidence in during its rebuttal case.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

1.  Where a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?

2. Did the court of appeals err in holding any error harmless where we do not know precisely what Mr.

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review):

Were Robinson’s state and federal constitutional rights against double jeopardy violated when, after imposing a sentence and remanding her to start serving the sentence forthwith, the circuit court recalled the case the next day and increased her sentence, not based on an error of law or a misstatement of fact?

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Issue (from certification):

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

See our previous post for further discussion.