On Point blog, page 32 of 104
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State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity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….
US Supreme Court dismisses case alleging a speedy trial violation based on delay due to state’s failure to fund indigent defense
Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC 11-9953, 4/29/13
United States Supreme Court order and opinions, dismissing, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari to review State v. Boyer, 56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
As explained in our post on the grant of certiorari, the issue was whether and how the state’s failure to fund indigent defense should count against the state in analyzing the defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim under Barker v.
Wisconsin Supreme Court denies defendant plea withdrawal though trial court misstated maximum sentence
State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, on review of court of appeals certification; case activity
In a split decision, the supreme court holds that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the long-established procedure established by State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), even though the trial court misinformed him of the maximum penalty he faced:
¶8 We hold that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly,
What are the implications of Taylor for practitioners?
State v. Taylor continues what the supreme court began in State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64: Dismantling by implication the well-established Bangert procedures and creating new ways for trial courts to avoid evidentiary hearings on plea withdrawal motions.
Taylor’s motion clearly established enough to get an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. (¶75). So why didn’t he get one?
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects argument that Miranda protections apply when custody is “imminent”
State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a lawyer. (¶12). Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the invocation of the right to counsel would mean the police had to cease interrogation unless Lonkoski reinitiated the interview.
Wisconsin Supreme Court holds counsel in merit appeal may refer to PSI without asking permission from any court
In the Matter of State v. Michael Buchanan: State ex rel. Office of State Public Defender v. Wis. Court of Appeals, District IV, 2013 WI 31, on review of petition for supervisory writ; case activity
In an important decision for all lawyers who handle criminal cases in the state appellate courts, the supreme court affirms that counsel for the defendant and the state do not need permission from a court to use,