On Point

Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, 2020 WL 1906545, 4/20/20, reversing State v. Ramos, 231 So. 3d 44 (La. Ct. Apps. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

The holding in this case has no relevance to Wisconsin practitioners, or indeed anyone outside of Louisiana or Oregon–the only two jurisdictions permitting 10-2 guilty verdicts in criminal trials. The Sixth Amendment requires unanimity in federal trials, and our state supreme court has long held the Wisconsin Constitution confers the same right. See Holland v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 138, 280 N.W.2d 288 (1979). So if you’re interested only in the impact on your practice, there is none, and you can stop reading now.

United States v. Dustin Caya, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-2469, 4/16/20

Caya was on extended supervision. Police developed reasonable suspicion to search his home, and duly did so under § 302.113(7r), which was created by 2013 Wisconsin Act 79. Caya argues that statute violates the Fourth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit rejects the claim.

State v. Quaid Q. Belk, 2019AP982-CR, District 1, 4/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Belk moved for a new trial based on multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, but the court of appeals sends the case back for a hearing on one of the claims.

State v. Brandin L. McConochie, 2019AP2149-CR, District 2, 4/22/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McConochie pulled his vehicle alongside Amish buggies and exposed his genitals to the occupants within. He pled no contest to 3 counts of lewd and lascivious behavior as a repeater. As a condition of probation, the court banished him a delineated area where Amish live. McConochie argued that banishment violated his constitutional right to travel.

State v. Mister N.P. Bratchett, 2018AP2305-CR, 4/22/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Bratchett was convicted of mutilating a corpse under §940.11(1), which requires proof that: (1) the defendant mutilated a corpse, and (2) he did so with intent to conceal a crime. On appeal, Bratchett argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the second element. Part of the problem was that State never specified the crime to be concealed.

State v. Wyatt William Kontny, 2020 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)

You’d think all the sentence credit issues would’ve been settled by now, but it’s not so! This case settles two of them.

State v. Katelyn Marie Leach, 2019AP1830-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

Leach pled “no contest” to 2nd offense operating a motor vehicle with a restricted substance. She  moved to suppress evidence that she gave an officer after he told her that (a) if she only had paraphernalia or a small amount of marijuana she would just receive a municipal citation, and (b) he was going to search her regardless.

This week SCOWstats considers “bloc cohesion” on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. When conservatives hold 5 of 7 seats on the court, the odd conservative can part company with the others and join the liberals or file a dissent making an argument they wish a party had made, but didn’t. Will that still happen next term when conservatives have only 4 seats on the court? Learn more here.

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2018AP2412-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Singh appealed an OWI second, which the court of appeals summarily reversed and remanded with an order for the circuit court to provide the relief due under §971.13–voiding any penalty in excess of the statutory maximum. On remand, the circuit court did as ordered, Singh moved for reconsideration asking the circuit court to vacate the judgment of conviction, vacate his plea, and dismiss the case. Motion denied. Decision affirmed.

State v. Richard H. Harrison, Jr., 2020 WI 35, 4/17/20, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

Addressing an unusual issue that is now also effectively moot due to developments in the case since the cross petitions for review were granted, a majority of the supreme court holds that Harrison isn’t entitled to sentence credit or sentence “advancement” toward an earlier sentence for time spent in custody on a consecutive sentence that is later vacated.