On Point blog, page 3 of 3
SCOW: circuit courts may impose consecutive NGI commitments
State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, 2/16/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) for more than one offense, the commitments for the offenses may be ordered to run consecutively.
SCOW further explains the test for granting a stay pending appeal
The main issue in Waity v. Lemahieu, 2022 WI 6 (January 27, 2022), involves the legislature’s power to hire lawyers to deal with redistricting issues, but along the way a majority of the court addresses a matter of interest to all appellate and postconviction lawyers: the proper application of the standard for a circuit court to apply in deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal. While seeking a stay in a criminal case is often a futile endeavor for the defense, what the court says here might be useful next time you consider doing so.
SCOW holds sentencing judge didn’t rely on gun ownership in sentencing
State v. Octavia W. Dodson, 2022 WI 5, 2018AP1476, 1/26/22, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Dodson pleaded guilty to second-degree homicide. He’d shot and killed Freeman, who he (apparently erroneously) believed had earlier rear-ended his car. Dodson had pursued Freeman’s car and Freeman pulled over. Dodson said Freeman had run at him shouting racial epithets; that’s when Dodson shot him.
SCOW issues defense win on Chapter 51 jury demands
Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, 11/23/21, reversing an unpublished court of appeals’ opinion; case activity
This 4-3 “defense win” delivers a 1-2-3 punch! The decision: (1) holds that a person undergoing commitment has the right to demand a jury 48 hours before the time set for his final hearing–even if the hearing is rescheduled; (2) reverses a recent, published court of appeals opinion to the contrary; and (3) resolves a split over the proper remedy for cases where the appellate court holds that the circuit court erred, but the underlying commitment order has expired. (Answer: Simply reverse because the circuit court lacks competency to conduct remand proceedings on an expired commitment order.)