On Point: B. Opinions

State v. A.G., 2023 WI 61, 6/30/23, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)

In a closely-watched appeal involving tricky questions regarding plea withdrawal in TPR cases, a fractured court agrees that the court of appeals got it wrong but fails to otherwise develop the law.

Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2023 WI 59, 6/29/23, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)

In a case with potentially far-reaching implications for Chapter 51 appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issues a narrow holding that leaves a major D.J.W. issue for another day.

State v. Eric J. Debrow, 2023 WI 54, 6/23/23, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In yet another reversal of a defense win, SCOW defers to the circuit court’s decision denying a motion for mistrial but slightly muddies the waters as to the proper legal analysis when assessing mistrial claims on appeal.

State v. Quaheem O. Moore, 2023 WI 50, 6/20/23, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

As many surrounding states continue to legalize marijuana–and with the explosion of CBD and other legal hemp-derived products throughout Wisconsin–some observers have questioned the continued viability of Fourth Amendment rules permitting intrusive law enforcement action when officers smell what they believe to be THC. However, because THC remains illegal under Wisconsin law, these arguments fail in light of well-settled Fourth Amendment principles.

State v. Michael K. Fermanich, 2023 WI 48, 6/14/23, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The key takeaway here is that five justices reaffirm and apply State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, and hold that Fermanich is entitled to 433 days sentence credit for time he spent in custody in connection with Oneida County charges that were dismissed and read-in at his Langlade County sentencing. (Opinion, ¶2). A concurrence by Justice Dallet is worth reading as a preemptive response to the dissent’s answer to the question for which the court granted review: whether State v. Tuescher should be reexamined and limited to the unique circumstances present there. A dissent by Chief Justice Ziegler and R.G. Bradley would have overruled Floyd, denied Fermanich credit under Tuescher, and required him to return to custody for an additional 433 days. (See Op., ¶19, Dallet, concurring).

State v. Corey T. Rector, 2023 WI 41, 5/23/23 affirming a case certified by the court of appeals, 2020AP1213; case activity (including briefs)

Rector pleaded to five counts of possessing child pornography in a single case. He’d never been convicted of anything before. The sentencing judge ordered that he be placed on the sex offender registry until 15 years after the end of his sentence or supervision. The Department of Corrections then wrote the judge to say that, in its view, any two or more convictions of registry-eligible sex offenses trigger mandatory registration for life. The judge stuck to his guns and reiterated the 15-year registry requirement. The state appealed, and the court of appeals certified the case. The state supreme court now holds, 4-3, that Rector is not required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

State v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, 5/12/23, dismissing as improvidently granted review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2019AP2383; case activity (including briefs)

Our post on the grant of review in this case said SCOW might use it to “expound on State v. Cooper, 2019 WI 73, 387 Wis. 2d 439, 929 N.W.2d 192 (IAC claims where counsel has been disciplined), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)(prejudice prong in the plea context); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)(failure to communicate plea offer). There will be no expounding on those cases. Instead, SCOW dismisses the case as improvidently granted. That doesn’t mean there’s not any expounding to be had, though: Justices R.G. Bradley (in concurrence) and A.W. Bradley (in dissent) write to state their views on whether SCOW should explain itself when it DIGs.

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.

Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2023 WI 38, 5/16/23, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

In a 6-1 opinion, SCOW held that the ballot question for Marsy’s law complied with Wis. Const. art. XII §1. That’s the old news. The new and BIG news is Justice Dallet’s concurrence. It is essential reading for lawyers arguing constitutional or statutory construction issues to SCOW. She, Karofsky, and A.W. Bradley say that they are not bound by “methodologies” for interpreting constitutions and statutes–specifically “originalism” or strict adherence to the “plain language”–that SCOW has used in some past cases. If Justice-elect Protasiewicz agrees, we may soon see some defense-friendly constructions of our constitution and statutes.

State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2023 WI 22, 03/28/2023, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state agreed to “not recommend a specific term of imprisonment.” At sentencing, the state argued for 27 years imprisonment, consisting of 12 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. Nietzold objected, was denied a postconviction motion hearing in the circuit court, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered resentencing before a different judge. Now, a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the state “cured” its undisputed material and substantial breach because the prosecutor “acknowledged the blunder and modified the State’s recommendation to an undefined prison term-exactly what Nietzold agreed to.” (Opinion, ¶14).