On Point

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State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2017AP2452-CR, 12/11/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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

State v. Kristy L. Malnory, 2018AP216-CR, District 4, 12/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At Malnory’s trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol content, her lawyer failed to object to the admission of the “Blood/Urine Analysis” form completed at the time of her blood draw. She argues this was deficient performance because the form is testimonial, and admitting it without the testimony of the person who completed it violates her confrontation rights. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but even if that’s true there was no prejudice.

State v. Alexander M. Schultz, 2019 WI App 3, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Addressing an issue of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that to ascertain the scope of the double jeopardy bar against a successive prosecution when the charging language of the prior case is ambiguous, a court must consider, in light of the entire record of the prior case, how a reasonable person familiar with the facts and circumstances of a particular case would understand that charging language. Applying the test here, the court rules Schultz’s prosecution wasn’t barred.

State v. Shawn A. Hodgkins, 2017AP1799-CR, District 2, 12/12/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

Hodgkins objected to DOC collecting costs from him while he was in prison because the circuit court ordered the costs to be collected while he was on a term of consecutive probation. He also sought a “new factor” sentence modification. Alas, it was all in vain.

Winnebago County v. A.A., 2018AP1505-FT, 12/12/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.A.’s commitment was set to expire on March 28th. Two days before his March 22 recommitment hearing he demanded a jury trial. The court gave him one on  April 12th. A.A. argued that the trial court lost competency to act when it failed to hold the recommitment trial before the original commitment expired.

State v. William J. Smith, 2018AP320-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The encounter between police and Smith wasn’t a seizure, so the search of Smith wasn’t the fruit of an illegal seizure.

State v. Howard D. Davis, 2017AP942-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Davis claimed trial counsel was ineffective in various ways, and that a juror may have introduced extraneous information into deliberations. The trial court denied his claims without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms.

Some things only get better with age: whiskey, cheddar cheese, blue jeans, wine. We hope to add On Point to that list.  Over the past few months, we’ve been working to make it easier to navigate the site, easier to find old posts on the topics you want to research. Here is what we’ve changed:

State v. Faith N. Reed, 2018 WI 109, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1609; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s something not seen in a while: our state supreme court suppressing evidence because the police violated the Fourth Amendment.