On Point

State v. Lorenzo D. Kyles, 2018AP296-Cr, District 1, 11/20/18, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appears to be Wisconsin’s second application of Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), which modified the prejudice prong of  Strickland‘s ineffective assistance of counsel test for situations where defense counsel failed to convey a plea offer and thereby caused the defendant to accept  subsequent, potentially less favorable offer. 

State v. Brian M. Smits, 2017AP2141-Cr, District 2, 11/20/18, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Smits with obstruction, OWI 2nd, and operating with a PAC 2nd. The case was tried to a jury, After both sides rested, the State filed an amended complaint containing a 2nd obstruction charge. The court of appeals affirmed because Smits wasn’t prejudiced by the amendment.

State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 2018 WI 106, 11/16/18, on certification from the court of appeals; 2017AP208; case activity (including briefs)

The police thought Pinder was probably the culprit in a string of burglaries, so they applied for, and got, a warrant to attach a GPS device to his car. They did not actually do the attaching, though, until 10 days after they got the warrant. This seems to run afoul of Wis. Stat. § 968.15, which together with surrounding provisions defines, authorizes and regulates the issuance of search warrants. Specifically, it says a warrant not executed within five days of issuance is “void.”

State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2017AP1202-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 11/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1.   Is this Court’s holding in Avila–that it is “not reasonably likely” that the standard JI-140 reduces the State’s burden of proof–good law; or should it be overruled by the Court on the grounds that it is rebutted by empirical evidence?

Richard Posner wrote a whole book aimed at measuring Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s judicial influence. See Cardozo: A Study in Reputation. The book blurb asks: “What makes a great judge? How are reputations forged? Why do some reputations endure, while others crumble? And how can we know whether a reputation is fairly deserved?” Because this is Justice […]

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, 11/13/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/9/19, affirmed, 2019 WI 106, ; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s good one for SCOW. A jury convicted Pope of 2 counts of 1st degree homicide in 1996. His lawyer forgot to file a notice of intent. Twenty years later, the State stipulated to reinstatement of Pope’s direct appeal. He tried to order transcripts but couldn’t because the court reporters had destroyed their notes. The circuit court ordered a new trial, but the court of appeals reversed because his new lawyer could not predict what “colorable claims” lurked in transcripts that weren’t prepared and could never be reconstructed.

St. Croix County v. Kimberly L. Severson, 2017AP1111, 11/13/18, District 3, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a City of Eau Claire v. Booth redux. In 2001 Severson was charged with OWI 1st in Eau Claire County and convicted of a separate OWI 1st in St. Croix County. Had St. Croix conviction been properly charged as an OWI 2nd, Severson would have had a constitutional right to counsel. But te court of appeals, applying Booth, held that Severson’s failure to object to the St. Croix County circuit court’s lack of competency to proceed to judgment forfeited that issue for appeal.

State v. Jonalle L. Ferraro, 2018AP498, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

As in Palmersheim just last week, here we have another successor to Weber from the 2016 term – an officer follows a driver (or recent driver) into his or her garage to arrest.

State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause.

Monroe County v. B.L., 2018AP694, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.L. argues on appeal that the doctor who initiated his emergency detention could not also be one of the examiners appointed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)1.. The court does not address the argument, because B.L. raises it for the first time on appeal.