Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
SCOW to decide if failing to object to consideration of information at sentencing forfeits right to review
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19, and State v. Donavinn Coffee, 2017AP2292-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19; case activity (Counihan; Coffee)
Issues:
Does a defendant forfeit his right to challenge a judge’s consideration of information at sentencing by failing to object to the information at the time of sentencing?
If trial counsel does not object to the court’s consideration of the information and the defendant alleges postconviction that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, what is the standard for determining whether trial counsel’s failure was prejudicial?
Warrantless entry to home requires suppression of evidence
State v. Brett C. Basler, 2018AP2299-CR, District 2, 5/15/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police entered Basler’s home looking for a driver suspected of hitting a Hardee’s® restaurant while operating while intoxicated. They didn’t have a warrant. There were no exigent circumstances. The entry was unlawful.
Extension of commitment moots appeal of original order
Waukesha County v. W.E.L., 2018AP1486, District 2, 5/15/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While W.E.L.’s challenge to his initial six-month-long commitment and medication orders was pending, both orders were extended by stipulation for 12 months. He didn’t challenge the extension, so his appeal of the initial orders is moot.
Chapter 51 extension statute constitutional, and extension order was valid
Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2018AP987, District 1, 5/14/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects D.C.B.’s constitutional and procedural challenges to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment.
Turning off idling car didn’t scotch probable cause
City of West Allis v. James M. Gregg, 2018AP1326, District 1, 5/14/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sure, the car wasn’t running by the time the officer pulled up behind it with his squad lights flashing. But that doesn’t mean the officer lacked probable cause to believe the guy behind the wheel had been operating while intoxicated.
The harmful consequences of pre-trial detention
Thanks to Margaret Johnson for highlighting this new article on the harmful effects of pre-trial detention. If you’re too poor to post bail you get detained. And people who get detained are more likely to get convicted, receive longer sentences and become involved in the criminal justice system. The article concludes with suggestions for better […]
A prosecutor’s ethical duties when negotiating a plea in a misdemeanor case
Many misdemeanor defendants don’t have lawyers. So when prosecutors are negotiating a plea deals with them do they have to ensure that the defendants have an opportunity to obtain counsel or reveal collateral consequences–like deportation or the loss of public services? There’s a new ABA ethics opinion on this topic. Read about it here.
Pro se inmate wins appeal and then acquittal of homicide charge on remand
Take that prosecutor! Click here for the story.
Federal legislation to support public defenders
Yes, federal legislation. You don’t see that very often. Yesterday Senator Kamala Harris introduced the EQUAL Defense Act to provide financial support for public defender systems across the county. Among other things, the proposed legislation aims to track and limit public defender workloads and create pay parity between public defenders and prosecutors within 5 years.
Harmless error and a “reasonable reading” of the record doomed dad’s appeal from TPR order
Dane County DHS v. T.S., 2019AP415, 5/9/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of this TPR case, T.S. challenged the circuit court’s application of §48.415(2), the CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights. He also argued that at the disposition phase the circuit court ignored one of the “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3) and substituted in an improper factor. He lost on both counts.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.