On Point

Check out the new article to be published in the University of  Illinois Law Review by the prolific Michael Cicchini. It examines how Wisconsin judges accept pleas and then jump the agreed upon sentence (or joint recommendation), leaving the defendant without recourse.  The article contrasts Wisconsin practice’s with the majority of states, which don’t allow judges […]

Jefferson County v. M.P., 2019AP2229, 3/5/20, District 4 (One-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.P. has schizophrenia. In 2018, she was committed for six months after she made statements about shooting some relatives and burning down a house. In 2019, the county sought and received an extension of the commitment. M.P. argues that recommitment was invalid because the evidence went only to her conduct before her initial commitment, and thus didn’t show her to be currently dangerous. The court of appeals disagrees.

Kansas v. Garcia, USSC No. 17-384, 2020 WL 1016170, 3/3/20, reversing and remanding State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) In a five-to-four vote, the Supreme Court has upheld Kansas’s prosecution of noncitizens who used stolen social security numbers to gain employment. The Kansas Supreme Court […]

State v. Lance L. Black, 2019AP592, 3/3/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Black’s first trial ended in a hung jury. When the state said it would try him again, he made a fuss–swearing and pounding on a table. At his second trial, Black again erupted (twice), was removed from the courtroom, and refused to return. His counsel requested a competency evaluation, which the court permitted, though with apparent reluctance. After the examiner found Black incompetent, the court disagreed with her, finding him competent and continuing the trial to (guilty) verdicts.

State v. A.A., 2020 WI App 11; case activity

Wisconsin Stat. § 938.355(6)(d)1. sets a maximum length of “not more than 10 days” for a custody sanction that a circuit court may impose on a juvenile who has violated a dispositional order. Is that 10 calendar days? Or, as the state argues, does “day” mean 24 consecutive hours, so that the maximum sanction is 10 consecutive 24-hour periods? It’s a calendar day, essentially, holds the court of appeals.

Demonta Antonio Hall v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2020 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that will certainly benefit some people who were arrested for a crime but never charged, the court of appeals orders the Department of Justice to expunge its records showing Demonta Hall was arrested for two felony offenses that were never prosecuted.

State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 2/25/20, affirming in part and reversing in part a summary order, 2018AP53; case activity (including briefs)

Brantner was arrested (for reasons unrelated to this case) in Kenosha County by Fond du Lac County detectives. They took him to jail in Fond du Lac, where a booking search revealed several different types of pills concealed in his boot. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Fond du Lac on five counts of drug possession and five associated bail-jumping counts. The supreme court now rejects his argument that he didn’t “possess” any of the drugs in Fond du Lac County–that the arrest in Kenosha terminated his possession because he lacked control over the pills. But it agrees with him that his conviction on two of the counts (with their associated bail-jumping counts) is a double-jeopardy violation; the bare fact that he had pills with two different oxycodone dosages (5 and 20 milligram) will not support two different charges of possessing that drug.

On February 26, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication of three decisions; none of them are in a criminal law related case.

State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective.

SCOW issued an important Chapter 51 decision today. In Waukesha County v. J.J.H, Appeal No.  2018AP168 a young, deaf woman argued that the circuit court denied her due process right to sign language interpreters for her Chapter 51 probable cause hearing. The court of appeals held the matter moot and said it was unlikely to recur even though it knew that this was the 2nd time in 3 days she had been denied interpreters for a court hearing.  According to the court of appeals, if J.J.H. wanted interpreters, then she should have waived her due process right to a hearing within 72 hours. J.J.H. petitioned for review, and SCOW took the case.