On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand

Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:

¶5   Considering the interests of the court of appeals,

on review of summary order (District 2); for Negrete: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Plea Withdrawal – Collateral Attack – Deportation Consequences 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the laches doctrine bars Negrete’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, 18 years after he entered it.

2. Whether Negrete’s assertion that he didn’t know his plea exposed him to deportation entitles him to a hearing on his motion.

on review of summary order (District 1); for Sutton: Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  case activity

No-Merit Appeal Procedure – Remand for Evidentiary Hearing

Issues: 

1. (Composed by On Point:) Whether § 809.32(1)(g) requires the court of appeals to remand a case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing where, during the course of a no-merit proceeding, an arguably meritorious claim for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel becomes apparent?

on review of unpublished decision; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate;  case activity

Juvenile Delinquency – Waiver Investigation Hearing

Issue (Composed by On Point): 

Whether, on petition to waive a juvenile into adult court, the State may give ex parte input to a local agency making the waiver recommendation pursuant to the circuit court’s request under § 939.18(2m).

The State filed a waiver petition;

on review of published decision; for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt:  Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the State may bring a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition to judgment when the respondent is in the exclusive custody of the Department of Corrections,

on review of published decision; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Commitment – Alzheimer’s

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether Alzheimer’s is a qualifying mental condition so as to support commitment under ch. 51.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams:  Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Search Warrants – Issuance by Commissioner

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether § 757.69(1)(b) confers on court commissioner authority to issue search warrants, or whether Wis. Const. art. VII, § 2 reserves such power to judges.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

State v. Edwin Clarence West, 2011 WI 83, affirming unpublished opinion; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity [Companion case: State v. Nordberg, 2011 WI 84 (same result, controlled by West).]

Someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4)(cg),

State v. David J. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Balliette’s pro se § 974.06 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, was insufficiently pleaded to require an evidentiary hearing.

Unless you’re an appellate specialist or a masochist –

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation

Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:

¶28  Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.