On Point blog, page 2 of 3
SCOW clarifies Nelson/Bentley test and read-in procedure; muddles rules on petitions for review again
State v. Richard J. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, 6/14/16, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Sulla entered a plea agreement requiring him to plead “no contest” to two counts and the State to dismiss and “read in” two other counts for purposes of sentencing and restitution. But after he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, Sulla moved for plea withdrawal arguing that he was misinformed of, and did not understand, the effect that a read-in charge could have at sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing. Don’t be fooled. SCOW’s decision here affects more than plea withdrawal. It changes appellate procedure.
SCOW: Joinder of charges okay. Oh, and “or” can also mean “by”.
State v. Salinas, 2016 WI 44, 5/26/2016, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In which our so-called law-developing court does not develop the law of joinder under § 971.12(1)—and even leaves it less clear than it used to be.
SCOW dismisses DA’s action to enjoin release of information in response to open records request
State v. Moustakis, 2016 WI 42, 5/20/2016, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2015 WI App 63, case activity (including briefs)
This decision may interest those who need to file an open records request concerning a district attorney. In this case, a newspaper asked the DOJ for records of complaints or investigations regarding the Vilas County District Attorney. The DA sought to enjoin the DOJ from releasing the records.
Mike Tobin Guest Posts: SCOW declines to extend Padilla to other serious consequences of conviction
State v. Stephen LeMere, 2016 WI 41, 05/12/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)
In State v. LeMere, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not require defense counsel to advise a client that conviction for a pending charge of sexual assault could result in future commitment proceedings under chapter 980. The case could be appropriate for certiorari review in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the scope of the right to counsel.
SCOW does not overrule Steven H., except for the holding
St. Croix County Department of Health and Human Services v. Michael D. & Juanita A., 2016 WI 35, 05/12/2016, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607, finds itself roundly praised and deeply buried by our high court.
SCOW: No right-to-testify colloquy needed in second NGI phase
State v. James Elvin Lagrone, 2016 WI 26, 4/22/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Ziegler, dissent by A.W. Bradley (joined by Abrahamson); case activity (including briefs)
Lagrone wasn’t told he had the right to testify during the second, mental responsibility phase of his NGI trial. He alleged in his postconviction motion that he didn’t know he had any such right. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The supreme court now affirms that denial in an opinion that neither (1) decides whether Lagrone had a right to testify during the second phase, nor (2) explains how the denial of that right, if it exists, can be raised in postconviction proceedings.
SCOW reformulates “clearly erroneous” standard, renders competency findings unassailable
State v. Jimmie Lee Smith, 2016 WI 23, 4/7/16, reversing a published court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Roggensack, concurrence by Ziegler, dissent by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley); case activity (including briefs)
You can’t accuse the majority of mere error correction in this decision. Although the State never asked SCOW to rewrite the “clearly erroneous” standard of review and nobody briefed or orally argued the issue (see Ziegler’s concurrence and Abrahamson’s dissent), the majority seized the opportunity to make a tough standard even tougher. Unless SCOTUS steps in, it’s going to be virtually impossible to challenge circuit court competency findings as well as other circuit court decisions governed by the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.
SCOW: No breach in recommending consecutive sentences
State v. Patrick K. Tourville, 2016 WI 17, 3/15/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Patrick Tourville pled to four crimes in a deal that called on the state to recommend a sentence no higher than the one recommended by the PSI. The PSI recommended a prison term for each count; the state recommended that these terms be run consecutively. So when the state asked for consecutive time even though the PSI didn’t, did it honor its commitment to follow the PSI? If you answered “no,” the one thing we know about you is that you’re not a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
SCOW: Natural dissipation of heroin justifies skipping warrant for blood draw
State v. Andy J. Parisi, 2016 WI 10, 2/24/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Police found Andy Parisi unconscious and having trouble breathing. Almost two and a half hours later, at a hospital, an officer had his blood drawn to test for heroin. The state supreme court now holds that the circumstances of this case–which seem to boil down to the fact that heroin naturally dissipates within the bloodstream–were “exigent,” justifying the warrantless search.
SCOW expands community caretaker doctrine; lets Justice R. Bradley break tie vote
State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 2/10/16, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
This is a painful loss for the defense. Matalonis won suppression at the court of appeals. The State filed a petition for review, which, of course, was granted. SCOW held oral argument and took a tentative vote before Justice Crooks died. After his death, the vote changed to 3-3. So you’d expect this case to end in a tie, which would affirm the court of appeals’ decision. But that did not happen. Instead, though she has not participated in any other case argued and decided before she joined SCOW, Justice R. Bradley emerged to cast the decisive vote against the defendant here. Even worse, Justice Prosser says the majority opinion extends the community caretaker exception just enough to swallow the 4th Amendment. Ouch.