On Point

State v. Rafael D. Newson, 2018AP551, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Newson claims that his trial and postconviction lawyers were ineffective for failing to raise lack of jurisdiction caused by the State’s failure to file its complaint against him before he was extradited to Arizona. He also argued that the Escalona bar should not apply given that he was in Arizona at the time of his direct appeal and his first two postconviction motions. The court of appeals did not bite on either.

Justice Abrahamson has just begun her 43rd term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Because she has announced that this will also be her last term, SCOWstats has crunched some numbers on her. The results are impressive. Click here.

State v. Alice M. Fischer, 2018AP422-CR, 9/18/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This case may sound vaguely familiar. Trial counsel failed to investigate and make use of a claim against a sheriff’s sergeant, Matthew Paradise, the defendant in a civil rights action alleging that he and others conspired to create inaccurate reports leading to a false drunk driving charge against one Tanya Weyker. Turns out Paradise also stopped Fischer for OWI and testified at her trial.

State v. Darrick L. Bennett, 2016AP2209-CR, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bennett was charged with 1st degree intentional homicide, but pled guilty to 1st degree reckless homicide. In a decision turning on facts specific to this case, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision denying (a) plea withdrawal without a hearing, (b) sentence modification based on a new factors, and (c) postconviction discovery of evidence that might have affected his sentence.

On August 29, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46 (judge doesn’t have to inform defendant during plea colloquy about mandatory DNA surcharge) State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2018 WI App 49 (“let me represent myself” wasn’t an […]

On September 26, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Norris W. Culver, Sr., 2018 WI App 55 (rejecting constitutional challenges to §§ 942.09 and 941.29) State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57 (identify theft doesn’t require some extra act of “representing” in […]

State v. Brinkley L. Bridges, 2017AP2311-CR, 9/25/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bridges pled to five felonies involving guns and drugs; the evidence against him was derived, in part, from a warrant police had obtained allowing them to track his cell phone. He argues counsel was ineffective for not challenging that warrant because the application didn’t show probable cause.

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2016AP2258-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 9/4/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point):

When a person enters a guilty plea to a criminal charge coupled with the defense of not responsible due to mental disease or defect under § 971.15, is a circuit court required to advise the person of the maximum term of commitment under ¶ 971.17 in addition to the maximum penalties provided for the offense?

State v. Dennis L. Schwind, 2017AP141-CR, petition for review of a summary disposition granted 9/4/18; case activity

Issues (from Schwind’s petition for review):

1. Did the circuit court have inherent authority to reduce the length of Schwind’s probation?

2. If circuit courts have inherent authority to reduce the length of probation, what standard applies to the exercise of their authority?

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2017AP850-CR; certification granted 9/4/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the court of appeals’ certification):

1.  Whether the doctrine that provides for the forfeiture of the right to confrontation by wrongdoing applies at a homicide trial where the declarant is the homicide victim, but where the defendant killed the declarant to prevent him or her from testifying at a separate proceeding.

2.  Whether preventing the declarant from testifying must be the defendant’s primary purpose for the wrongful act that prevented the declarant from testifying in that separate proceeding.