On Point: '12-13

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review)

Should this Court accept review to examine when law enforcement can electronically track a cell phone in order to locate the phone’s user?

More specifically, should this Court review a) whether obtaining a cell phone’s location constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, b) if so,

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point):

If the Department of Corrections erroneously issues a probationer a discharge certificate under 973.o9(5) before the probationary term expired, but later discovers the error and proceeds to revoke the probationer, did the Department lose jurisdiction over the probationer?

If the Department retained jurisdiction over the probationer, is it equitably estopped from revoking him for conduct occurring before the probationary term expired?

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does a circuit court have discretion to dismiss a refusal proceeding after the prosecution of the underlying OWI charge results in an acquittal?

This case is of obvious interest to OWI practitioners, even if its facts are unusual and, thus, not likely to arise very often. As we noted in our post about the court of appeals decision,

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

1.  Where a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?

2. Did the court of appeals err in holding any error harmless where we do not know precisely what Mr.

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review):

Were Robinson’s state and federal constitutional rights against double jeopardy violated when, after imposing a sentence and remanding her to start serving the sentence forthwith, the circuit court recalled the case the next day and increased her sentence, not based on an error of law or a misstatement of fact?

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Issue (from certification):

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

See our previous post for further discussion.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the jury instructions on self defense as it pertained to second degree reckless homicide fairly and adequately explained the defense to the jury.

2. Whether trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence.

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so issue-formulation is educated guesswork based on the decision of the court of appeals.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.