On Point

State v. Harvey A. Talley, 2018AP786-CR, 2018AP787-CR, & 2018AP788-CR, District 1, 3/19/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Talley, who was convicted of first degree sexual assault causing pregnancy in violation of § 940.225(1)(a), argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit testimony from A.D., the complainant, the reasons why she initially falsely alleged Talley had forcible, nonconsensual sex with her. The court of appeals holds trial counsel’s strategy in questioning A.D. was reasonable.

State v. Daniel W. Morse, 2018AP1293-CR, District 1, 3/19/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Morse challenges his convictions for three counts of misdemeanor theft by embezzlement, but the court of appeals holds he’s waived his challenges by pleading guilty.

State v. Angela L. Staten, 2018AP1506-CR, District 1, 3/19/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Staten and her two co-defendants engaged in a course of tax fraud that netted them over $200,000 in tax refunds that didn’t belong to them. Staten, the first of the three sentenced, argues that her sentence was unduly harsh compared to her co-defendants’ sentences and that the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion in changing its mind at the very end and ordering prison rather than probation on two of the counts. The court of appeals rejects her challenges.

State v. Arttistis B. Hall, 2018AP1522-CR, District 1, 3/19/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After failing to comply with a family court child placement order, Hall was charged with two felony counts of interference with child custody; he ultimately pled to a reduced charge of contempt of court. (¶¶2-3). Though he expressed his displeasure with the situation, he got through what appears to be a pretty thorough plea colloquy. (¶¶4-6). Before sentencing he moved to withdraw his plea, but the court of appeals holds he didn’t show a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal.

State v. Rondale Darmon Tenner, 2018AP1115-CR, District 1, 3/12/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Tenner complains his lawyer was ineffective for failing to impeach one of the state’s witnesses with her prior convictions. He also says he should get a new trial because he has an affidavit from a new witness who says another state’s witness actually committed the crime pinned on Tenner. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Jerry Simone Wilson, 2018AP534, District 1, 3/12/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wilson’s bid for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence fails because he was negligent for not seeking the evidence at the time of his original trial.

S.D. v. A.V., 2018AP1150, District 4, 3/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.D. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of A.V., her ex-husband, after he was convicted and sent to prison for possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirms the unfitness finding but remands for a dispositional hearing.

Racine County HSD v. L.R.H.-J., 2018AP2065, District 2, 3/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.R.H.-J. was convicted of child neglect in causing the death of her first child in 2005. In 2015 she had another child, “Baby J,” who was immediately taken from her and a CHIPS proceeding commenced. In 2017 her rights to Baby J were terminated, after the circuit court granted summary judgment at the grounds phase, citing §48.415(9m). The court of appeals rejects facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the use of that statute against her with respect to Baby J.

State v. Jarmel Dontra Chisem, 2017AP1114-CR, 3/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Chisem, facing charges of first degree reckless homicide and first degree recklessly endangering safety, moved to sever his case from that of his co-defendant, Davis. The court of appeals holds trying the two together was fine.

Timbs v. Indiana, USSC No. 17-1091, February 20, 2019, reversing State v. Timbs, 84 N.E.3d 1179 (Ind. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

“The question presented: Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause an ‘incorporated’ protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?” The answer: Yes.