On Point blog, page 68 of 133
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decision below: unpublished; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; prior post, here.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?
Post-Appeal Interest-of-Justice Litigation
State v. Dimitri Henley, 2010 WI 97, on certification; prior history: unpublished decision; related: disqualification litigation; for Henley: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, Byron Lichstein; Amicus: SPD
“Wisconsin circuit courts do not have the inherent authority to order a new trial in the interest of justice when a case is not before the court under a proper procedural mechanism,”
Statute of Limitations – § 939.74(3) – Constitutionality; Pre-Charge Delay; Effective Assistance of Counsel – Investigation
Donald J. McGuire, 2010 WI 91, affirming unpublished decision; for McGuire: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Statute of Limitations – § 939.74(3) – Constitutionality
Under § 939.74(3), the statute of limitations is tolled during “the time during which the actor was not publicly a resident within this state.” McGuire wasn’t a Wisconsin resident, but allegedly committed criminal acts in Wisconsin approximately 36 years before charges were issued.
Search Warrant – GPS Tracking Device
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, affirming 2009 WI App 81; for Sveum: Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus (ACLU); Resp. to Amicus
A circuit court “order” authorizing law enforcement to place and monitor a GPS tracking device on Sveum’s vehicle satisfied 4th amendment Warrant Clause (all warrants must be validly issued) and Reasonableness Clause (warrants must be reasonably executed) requirements.
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2); Comment on Truthfulness; Self-Incrimination – Waiver – Examination by Expert
State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally
¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.
Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant
State v. Michael R. Hess, 2010 WI 82 affirming 2009 WI App 105; for Hess: George M. Tauscheck; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant
¶2 We conclude that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a situation in which: (1) no facts existed that would justify an arrest without a warrant;
Serial Litigation Bar and No-Merit Procedure
State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶4 We conclude, following Wis. Stat. § 974.06, that a defendant is not required to file a response to a no-merit report. This means he is not required to raise issues in response to a no-merit report.