On Point blog, page 67 of 133
State v. Charles Lamar, 2009 WI App 133, review granted 10/27/10
Prior post: here; background summary by court: here
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether, at resentencing, a defendant would be entitled to credit on a new sentence for time spent confined on a vacated sentence, which was served concurrently with another non-vacated sentence, when the new sentence is imposed consecutively to all other sentences (See Wis. Stat. § 973.04).
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, review granted 10/27/10
decision below: certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; court of appeals briefs: Resp.; Reply
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2009AP1252-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/22/10
decision below: unpublished; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; court of appeals briefs: BiC; Resp.; Reply
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a defendant presented a new factor entitling sentence modification (See State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989).
Whether a defendant demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.
State v. Donovan M. Burris, 2009AP956-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/21/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Burris: Byron C. Lichstein
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Was the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction that was issued in response to a question from the jury and that quoted verbatim from a Supreme Court opinion an impermissibly misleading instruction under the standards established by State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis. 2d 183,
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25, Wis SCt rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error.
Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’ sister; court of appeals reversed because trial judge cut off cross-examination that Rhodes did not react violently in response to prior harm inflicted by victim on sister.
State v. David D. Funk, 2008AP2765-CR, Wis SCt Rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished summary disposition; for Funk: Michele Anne Tjader
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a juror was subjectively and/or objectively biased under the test set forth in State v. Delgado, 223 Wis. 2d 270, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999).
Briefs, appellate decision, petition for review: none is posted, so you can’t readily tell what the case is about. CCAP indicates that this is a sexual assault case and that the judge granted new trial because a juror failed to reveal on voir dire she’d been a sexual assault victim herself.
State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 09AP806, Wis SCT rev granted 9/13/10
decision below: 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Does the confrontation clause bar admission of testimonial dying declarations against a defendant in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 and State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d 811?
Does a defendant’s right to due process of law restrict the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements?
Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2010AP321, Wis SCt rev granted 9/13/10
decision below: unpublished; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; prior post, here.
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Did the trial court correctly exercise its discretion in denying a parent’s motion to withdraw a no contest plea that grounds existed for termination of parental rights without an evidentiary hearing?
State v. Omer Ninham, 2008AP1139, Wis SCt rev granted 9/13/10
decision below: 2009 WI App 64; for Ninham: Frank M. Tuerkheimer; Bryan Stevenson; Rebecca Kiley
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) and Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010) are applicable to revise the sentence of a defendant whose crime(s) were committed as a juvenile.
Whether the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under state and federal constitutions.
State v. David J. Balliette, 2009AP472, Wis SCT rev grant, 8/31/10
decision below: summary order (not posted); case information here; prior appeal: 2001AP2527-CR; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue (from AG’s petition for review):
Is an evidentiary hearing into the effectiveness of post-conviction counsel required in every case where the § 974.06 motion merely makes the conclusory allegation that post-conviction counsel was ineffective for not raising additional challenges to the effectiveness of trial counsel on direct review?