On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78
¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.
A less obscure problem than you might think.
Sentencing – Review – Reliance on Race or Gender
State v. Landray M. Harris, 2010 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Harris: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply; Amicus
¶3 We agree with the State and reject the reasonable observer test created by the court of appeals. Sentencing decisions are afforded a presumption of reasonability consistent with Wisconsin’s strong public policy against interference with a circuit court’s discretion.
Interlocutory-Appeal Petition – Reviewability
Estate of Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WI 71
The supreme court is empowered to review denial of a petition for leave to appeal non-final order by the court of appeals.
¶45 The language of our case law is strong. We have stated that “[w]here the court of appeals denies permission to appeal from an order conceded by the parties to be nonfinal,
Rape-Shield – Prior Untruthful Allegation
State v. Jim H. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, reversing unpublished opinion; for Ringer: Thomas O. Mulligan; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted Ringer’s motion in limine, allowing him to introduce at trial evidence that the child complainant made prior allegedly untruthful allegations of sexual assault against her biological father.
Guilty Plea – Knowledge of Maximum Penalty
State v. Travis Vondell Cross, 2010 WI 70, on bypass; for Cross: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Cross Supp.; AG Supp.
¶4 We hold that where a defendant is told that he faces a maximum possible sentence that is higher, but not substantially higher, than that authorized by law,
Counsel – Substitution – Deaf Defendant
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2010 WI 72, affirming unpublished opinion; for Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶43 The issues presented are first, whether Jones is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the circuit court wrongly denied his request for substitution of counsel, and second, whether he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that such a denial violates rights guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Counsel – Waiver – Self-Representation
State v. Rashaad A. Imani, 2010 WI 66, reversing 2009 WI App 98;habeas relief granted 6/22/16; for Imani: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Imani’s motion to represent himself. First, we determine that Imani did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel. The circuit court engaged Imani in two of the four lines of inquiry prescribed in Klessig and properly determined that Imani (1) did not make a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel,
Plea Bargain – Rejection; Recusal – Judge as Party
State v. Joshua D. Conger, 2010 WI 56, on certification; for Conger: Anthony L. O’Malley; Brief (State); Brief (Conger); Brief (Judge Grimm); Reply (Conger); Amicus (Prosecution Project, UW)
Plea Bargain – Rejection
A circuit court has post-arraignment authority to reject a proposed plea bargain that would result in amendment to the charge; State v.
TPR – Dispositional Orders, § 48.355(2)(b)1
Sheboygan Co. DHHS v. Tanya M.B. / William S.L., 2010 WI 55, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; for Tanya M.B.: Paul G. Bonneson; for William L.: Thomas K. Voss
CHIPS order entered under § 48.355(2)(b)1 “shall contain … specific services to be provided”; subsequent TPR based on lack of compliance with CHIPS conditions requires that the responsible agency made a reasonable effort to provide the ordered services.
Exigency – Answering Incoming Call, Lawfully Seized Cell Phone Image Supported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Answering call on lawfully seized cell phone proper, given existence of “probable cause to believe that the cell phone was a tool used in drug trafficking,” plus exigent circumstances (danger of evidence destruction), ¶¶35-42.
Probable cause, of course, is typically fact-specific and in that sense the court’s discussion (¶¶25-29) is mundane.