Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Evidence defendant shot a gun at prior incident was admissible
State v. Terrell Dawon Essex, 2017AP1509-CR, District 1, 5/15/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Essex was on trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm and first degree reckless homicide of a man named Dotson by use of a dangerous weapon. The circuit court allowed the state to present evidence that on a prior occasion Essex used the same firearm involved in Dotson’s shooting. The court of appeals holds the evidence was admissible.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s track record on termination of parental rights cases
As you might guess, parents in TPR appeals don’t fare well in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This edition of SCOWstats digs deeper and looks at how individual justices have voted in these cases over the past 25 years. Click SCOWstats to find out more.
In Wisconsin, we can send people to prison for things they did when they were 5
State v. Shaun M. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 5/18/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 22, case activity (including briefs)
The state can criminally punish a person for something he or she did as a small child.
For IAC claims in multi-count cases, SCOW says courts may determine prejudice on a count-by-count basis
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 5/18/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP897-CR, case activity
Appellate lawyers will want to pay attention to this decision because it clarifies the law and procedure governing claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In particular, resolving an issue of first impression, it holds that in a multi-count case, trial counsel’s ineffective assistance doesn’t automatically result in a new trial on all counts. In this case, SCOW affirmed a decision ordering a new trial on just 1 of 6 counts.
SCOW: Lifetime GPS monitoring is not a punishment the judge must cover in the plea colloquy
State v. DeAnthony K. Muldrow, 2018 WI 52, 5/18/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 47; case activity (including briefs)
A unanimous supreme court holds that lifetime GPS monitoring is not punishment, so a judge doesn’t have to advise a defendant that he or she is pleading to a crime that will require lifetime monitoring.
Must other states’ court orders mean what they say?
State v. Benjamin R. Tibbs, 2017AP2408-CR, District 4, 5/10/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Why, no; no, they don’t.
Defense win: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop car that turned around in wayside
Fond du Lac County v. Isaac Anthony Dahlke, 2017AP1417, District 2, 5/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The stop of Dahlke’s car was unlawful because the officer didn’t have an objectively reasonable belief that Dahlke entered a wayside in violation of an ordinance prescribing hours when the wayside is closed.
Challenge to collection of old fine fails
State v. Eric W. Poirier, 2017AP931-CR, District 3, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Back in 2003, Poirier was fined $1,184 for an OWI conviction. He didn’t pay, so a judgment was entered against him. In 2017 the circuit court entered an order assigning income from his prison account to pay the judgment. He objects to the assignment order, but to no avail, due in large part to missteps common to pro se litigants.
Evidence was sufficient to prove dangerousness under ch. 51
Milwaukee County v. I.K., 2017AP1425, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The County proved I.K. was dangerous under both § 51.20(1)(a)2.d., by showing there was a substantial probability I.K. would suffer physical harm resulting from his inability to satisfy basic needs due to mental illness, and § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., by showing that, after being advised of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting treatment, I.K. was unable to understand and make an informed choice regarding treatment and that a lack of treatment will result in further disability or deterioration.
It’s like déjà vu all over again: Challenges to TPR rejected
State v. A.E., 2017AP1773 & 2017AP1774, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is the third TPR opinion in a week addressing challenges to the denial of a postjudgment fact-finding hearing under § 809.107(6)(am) and a constitutional challenge to the application of the failure to assume parental responsibility standard to a parent whose children have been removed from the home under a CHIPS order. As with the other two cases, the court of appeals rejects the challenges.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.