On Point

State v. Dedric Earl Hamilton, Jr., 2018AP200-CR, 12/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Hamilton of 1st-degree sexual assault of his 8-year old niece. On appeal, he argued that: (1) he was he entitled to a hearing on his postconviction motion in which he alleged, with the support of two experts, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance when she failed either to challenge the voluntariness of his Miranda waiver and subsequent confession or to present evidence calling its reliability into question at trial; and (2) he was entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice.

Happy winter solstice! See you in 2019.

Perhaps not, according to this interesting article published by Propublica. It is part of a series of articles about cases involving blood splatter analysis, and the questions about the science have resulted in moves to try to exonerate the convicted defendants.

County of Lafayette v. Ian D. Humphrey, 2018AP481, District 4, 12/20/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After Humphrey didn’t pay his fine for operating after suspension the circuit court suspended his operating privileges under § 345.47(1)(b). Six months later Humphrey agreed to a payment plan, so the court withdrew the suspension. But Humphrey stopped paying again, so the court imposed another one year suspension of operating privileges. (¶¶2-3). Can the circuit court do that?

State v. Sadiq Imani, 2018AP596-CR, District 1, 12/18/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Imani doesn’t get a Machner hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the court of appeals concludes the record shows counsel’s alleged errors didn’t prejudice Imani.

Hatem M. Shata v. Denise Symdon, No. 16-CV-574 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2018)

Shata’s case was one of two our supreme court decided on the same day–both held counsel not ineffective for failing to give accurate advice on immigration consequences. You can see our prior post for the facts and our analysis of those decisions. Basically, counsel told Shata that pleading to the charged drug count would carry a “strong chance” of deporation, when in fact deportation was mandatory. Unlike our supreme court, the federal court now says that this wasn’t good enough–and further, that the supreme court’s conclusion that it was good enough was an unreasonable application of the law that SCOTUS clearly established in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2016AP1276-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/12/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review)

1. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner?
2. Was the line-up impermissibly suggestive because it violated the Department of Justice’s Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification and the viewing witnesses failed to follow the standard instructions given to them?
3. Can a trial court at a pre-trial hearing decide that a defendant has waived the right to self-representation because the court believes the defendant will engage in disruptive behavior in front of the jury? If so, does the defendant have a right to redeem himself?

State v. Tyrus Lee Cooper, 2016AP375, review of a per curiam opinion granted 12/12/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When defendant’s counsel has engaged in serious professional misconduct leading up to the trial date affecting defendant’s meaningful participation in his own defense, does that provide a sufficient reason to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing?
2. Did the the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing without an evidentiary record to support substantial prejudice to the State?

State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald, 2018AP1296-CR, petition for bypass granted 12/12/18, circuit court order vacated, 2019 WI 69; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

Whether the involuntary medication provisions of Wis. Stat. §971.14 are unconstitutional because they do not comport with Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)?

Whether the circuit court’s Order of Commitment for Involuntary Treatment violated Fitzgerald’s constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process?

State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2017AP2452-CR, 12/11/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2017, conservative activists on SCOW overruled a 12-year-old, unanimous opinion in order to overwrite the plain language of §974.07(7), Wisconsin’s postconviction DNA testing statute. They made it virtually impossible for a defendant to get this type of testing. See State v. Denny, 2017 WI 17 and our post about it. This court of appeals decision toes the line. It may be summed as: Let the conviction stand.