On Point: A. Review Grants

on review of unpublished decision; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate;  case activity

Juvenile Delinquency – Waiver Investigation Hearing

Issue (Composed by On Point): 

Whether, on petition to waive a juvenile into adult court, the State may give ex parte input to a local agency making the waiver recommendation pursuant to the circuit court’s request under § 939.18(2m).

The State filed a waiver petition;

on review of published decision; for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt:  Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the State may bring a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition to judgment when the respondent is in the exclusive custody of the Department of Corrections,

on review of published decision; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Commitment – Alzheimer’s

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether Alzheimer’s is a qualifying mental condition so as to support commitment under ch. 51.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams:  Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Search Warrants – Issuance by Commissioner

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether § 757.69(1)(b) confers on court commissioner authority to issue search warrants, or whether Wis. Const. art. VII, § 2 reserves such power to judges.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

on review of unpublished decision; for Felix: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Warrantless Nonconsensual Entry to Effectuate Arrest – Attenuation Doctrine

Issue (composed by On Point):

Whether Wisconsin should adopt the rule of New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) – post-arrest statements following illegal entry supported by probable cause but not exigent circumstances aren’t suppressible if made away from the home.

on certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether a defendant has a non-waivable right to be physically present at a §§ 971.04(1)(g) and 885.60.

If the right to physical presence at the plea proceeding can be waived or forfeited, whether a formal colloquy is nonetheless required before the defendant enters a plea via video conferencing.

on petition for review of published decision; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Can a defendant be found guilty under the forfeiture statutes on the grounds of judicial estoppel where the defendant claims he made no statement to a prior court?

Did the undisputed facts on the record establish that if judicial estoppel had not been applied, the defendant neither owned nor controlled the barge that sunk in a navigable waterway in order to be liable under the forfeiture statutes for violations of Wis.

on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Stevens: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

If a suspect in custody initiates communication with the police after previously invoking his Miranda right to consult with an attorney but has yet to again waive his Miranda rights, do the police violate the demands of Miranda by denying an attorney access to the suspect prior to the second waiver of his Miranda rights?

on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Thompson: J.P. La Chapelle; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Whether the failure to inform Thompson of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years of incarceration prior to trial violated Thompson’s constitutional due process rights.

Whether the complaint in this case was defective under Wis. Stat. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence,

certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity, circuit court affirmed 2012 WI 93

Plea Procedure – Personal Presence

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether Jon Soto’s statutory right to be physically present during a plea hearing was violated when the judge conducted the hearing through video teleconferencing and whether this issue was properly preserved.