On Point blog, page 31 of 104
Plea withdrawal motion was insufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing, Wisconsin Supreme Court rules
State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; unanimous opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity
In a case of interest primarily, if not exclusively, to lawyers handling postconviction proceedings in state courts, the supreme court holds Burton’s plea withdrawal motion was insufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing because it failed to allege sufficient facts to support either the ineffective assistance of counsel claim or the claim Burton’s plea was invalid because of a defective plea colloquy.
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to decide case involving a minor’s right to refuse medical treatment
Dane County v. Sheila W., 2013 WI 63 (per curiam), affirming court of appeals summary disposition; case activity
The supreme court dismisses as moot a case presenting the questions of whether Wisconsin recognizes the “mature minor” doctrine, which permits a minor to give or refuse consent to medical treatment after a finding that she is sufficiently mature and competent to make the treatment decision, and whether a minor has a due process right to refuse medical treatment.
SCOW affirms convictions of praying parents
State v. Neumann, 2011AP1044 and 2011AP1105, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity; majority opinion by C.J. Abrahamson.
In a 94-page decision, including a lone dissent by Justice Prosser, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has affirmed the 2nd degree reckless homicide convictions of Dale and Leilani Neumann for the death of their 11-year old daughter, Kara, who died of diabetic ketoacidosis caused by untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus.
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to overrule State v. Shiffra, but divides on remedy “in this case”
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2013 WI 59 (per curiam), affirming, as modified, an unpublished court of appeals opinion; reconsideration granted, 2014 WI 16 (per curiam); Justices Prosser and Gableman not participating; case activity
(Note: On July 22, 2013, both Johnson and the state filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s original decision;
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Deadline for requesting refusal hearing cannot be extended
Village of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion; Justice Bradley, for a unanimous court; case activity
The 10-day deadline for filing a request for a refusal hearing, §§ 343.305(9)(a)4. and (10)(a), is mandatory, and may not be extended based on excusable neglect.
Brefka was issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privileges on December 12 after he refused a chemical test.
Wisconsin Supreme Court holds a weekend guest can consent to a search of her host’s home
State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.
In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home and conduct a search. The court concludes the rule governing third-party consent articulated in United States v.
SCOW extends theft-of-property statute to phone services
State v. Steffes, 2013 WI 53, on review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.
Given the absence of precedent, Wisconsin Supreme Court may be out on a limb (or, rather, a pole) on this one. Apparently, while in prison, Matthew Steffes and his cohorts figured out a way to submit a fictitious business name and stolen personal information to AT&T in order to obtain a phone number.
Lack of proof dooms claim that statement to probation agent was compelled by threat of revocation
State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Jury instruction that added a requirement for proof that is not in the statutes was harmless error
State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, on review of published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack
Beamon was tried for fleeing an officer under § 346.04(3), which requires proof that the person knowingly fled or attempted to elude an officer in one of three ways: 1) by willful or wanton disregard of a visible or audible signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the police officer or other vehicles or pedestrians;
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Sentencing based on inaccurate information is not structural error, but mistake about mandatory minimum penalty in this case was not harmless
State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2013 WI 38, affirming published court of appeals decision, 2012 WI App 46, 340 Wis. 2d 639, 813 N.W.2d 702; case activity
¶9 The question of law presented to this court is whether a circuit court’s imposition of a sentence using inaccurate information that the defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum five-year period of confinement is structural error or subject to the application of harmless error analysis….