On Point

Charging as Sentencing, a recent article by Professor Donald Dripps at the University of San Diego Law School, contends that they are. Consider the possibilities.

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)

Olson and the state resolved some felony counts with an agreement that he’d plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court found him NGI and committed him for 19 years, placing him on conditional release immediately. A few weeks later, Olson admitted violating his release conditions by smoking methamphetamine. DHS, which supervises NGI committees, immediately took him into custody. For reasons unknown, it held him for eight days before filing a petition to revoke his supervised release. This, everyone agrees, violated Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e), which says such a petition “shall” be filed within 72 hours of detention (excluding weekends and holidays). The dispute on appeal is what that violation means: the state says there’s no consequence at all; Olson says a late petition is no good and must be dismissed. In legalese, the question is whether the word “shall” is mandatory or directory.

Dane County v. T.R., 2019AP1336-1338, 10/10/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a confidential case, so we don’t know what the briefs argue or the record shows. However, it seems the circuit court failed to make the findings essential to its order terminating T.R.’s parental rights to her 3 children, and the court of appeals shored up the decision in  order to affirm.

State v. Marcus Demond Anderson, Sr., 2018AP2016-CR, District 1, 10/8/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At the start of his sentencing hearing Anderson lodged a complaint against his lawyer, which the judge blithely ignored. (¶¶2-4). Do over, says the court of appeals.

State v. Robert C. Washington, 2018AP1771-CR, District 1, 10/8/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Washington was convicted of first degree reckless homicide and first degree reckless injury for shooting his two sons, killing one and injuring the other. He argues his lawyer was ineffective for advising him to plead without discussing possible lesser included offense possibilities and for failing to advocate for him at sentencing. He also argues newly discovered evidence shows the shootings were accidental, not reckless.

State v. Michael R. McGinnis, 2018AP1388-CR, District 3, 10/8/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer investigating a hit-and-run at the Happy Hollow Tavern unlawfully pushed his way into McGinnis’s home and then arrested him. The state concedes the officer’s entry was unlawful, so the evidence and statements police obtained while in McGinnis’s home must be suppressed. But the arrest of McGinnis was supported by probable cause, so the evidence obtained after the arrest is admissible.

State v. Jude W. Giles, 2018AP1967-CR, District 3, 10/8/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Jude’s sought to admit the results of his preliminary breath test results (.076) to lay a foundation for his expert’s opinion that alcohol was still being absorbed into his blood, making the state hygiene lab’s blood test result (.144) higher than his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving. (¶¶2-5). The circuit court properly disallowed the evidence because it runs smack dab into § 343.303 and State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6, 322 Wis. 2d 265, 778 N.W.2d, both of which strictly prohibit the admission of PBT results.

This week SCOTUS will hear arguments in cases addressing whether States may abolish the insanity defense and whether the 14th Amendment fully incorporates the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous of verdict. Visit SCOTUSblog to find out more

State v. Scott L. Nutting, 2017AP2049, 10/2/19, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At Nutting’s trial for sexual assault of a child, the State played parts of an audio recording of his custodial interview, but court and counsel neglected to make a record of them. Some would have been highly prejudicial to Nutting, so he requested a new trial. The court of appeals held that the postconviction court, the DA and defense counsel were able to  reconstruct the record sufficiently to give Nutting a meaningful appeal. It also denied Nutting’s claims for Brady violations.

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)

So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn.