On Point

State v. Dobbs, 2018AP319-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 1/14/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (based on Dobbs’ petition for review and SCOW’s order granting review:

1. Did the trial court err in precluding the defense’s expert on false confessions from testifying where, consistent with State v. Smith, 2016 WI App 8, 366 Wis. 2d 613, 874 N.W.2d 610, his opinions were relevant to a material issue, but he would not be offering an opinion on the specific facts of the case?

2. Did the trial court err in allowing Mr. Dobbs’ statements to law enforcement into evidence despite the delay in reading him his Miranda rights and because his statements were involuntary due to his mental and physical conditions?

3. Whether the court of appeals’ decision that Dobbs was in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings is consistent with State v. Morgan, 2002 WI App 124, 254 Wis. 2d 602, 648 N.W.2d 23. If not, whether Morgan should be overruled?

State v. Matthew Curtis Sills, 2018AP1052-CR, District 1, 1/14/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State initially Sills with 1^st degree child sexual assault, but then amended the charge twice. Ultimately, Sills pled to 2^nd degree sexual assault of a child. Before he was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea arguing, among other things, that court had failed to inform him that he faced a maximum fine of $100,000.

Milwaukee County v. E.C.H., 2019AP772, District 1, 1/14/20, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal asks: Is evidence of homelessness, by itself, sufficient to prove that a person is dangerous to himself or will become dangerous if treatment is withdrawn? And the answer is . . . we don’t know. Hiding behind the mootness doctrine, the court of appeals declined offer guidance to the circuit courts on this important issue of law.

State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Where to begin?

State v. Kenneth J. Heinrich, 2018AP2124-CR, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Heinrich moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his bail-jumping charges lacked a factual basis and were multiplicitous. His motion and subsequent appeal failed.

State v. Kody K. Johnson, 2019AP1058-CR, District 4, 1/9/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson accepted a negotiated disposition of 3 contempt charges stemming from his interference with child custody. He then moved to withdraw his plea arguing that the charges had no factual basis and were multiplicitous.

Portage County v. L.E., 2019AP1841-FT, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Welcome to another chapter in the Wisconsin saga “once committed, always committed.” L.E. has been under commitment for 25 years. At her most recent recommitment hearing, the County offered a doctor’s testimony that “if treatment were withdrawn she’d become a proper subject for commitment.” What facts supported that legal conclusion?  Well, not what Portage Cty v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, seems to require.

Centralized sentencing data would make the administration of justices more fair and transparent. Appellate courts could use the data to ensure that sentences under review are consistent and serve the fundamental purposes of sentencing. Wow! There’s an idea. Read more here. 

State v. Andre David Nash, 2018AP1595-CR, 1/7/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Under Wisconsin law, once a defendant shows that an out-of-court identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, the State has the burden of demonstrating that the identification was still reliable and should be admitted into evidence. Powell v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 51, 66 271 N.W.2d 610 (1978). In this case, the court of appeal held that the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the State, and so reversed.

He really wanted that name, the Minnesota court of appeals said “no” despite the 1st Amendment. The new name would be misleading and confusing. Read about it here.