On Point

State v. Shawn T. Wiskerchen, 2016AP1541-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; affirmed 1/4/19; case activity (including briefs).

Issue (composed by On Point):

In State v. Queever, 2016 WI App 87, 372 Wis. 2d 388, 887 N.W.2d 912, the court of appeals required a defendant to pay restitution for a security system that the victim bought before the date of the crime for which the defendant was convicted.

Must Queever be overturned because it is impossible for a crime committed on a certain date to cause losses on an earlier date? If not, what are the limits of Queever and of the definition of “a crime considered at sentencing” for restitution purposes? Can the definition include alleged prior-committed crimes?

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity
Issues:

1. Where, during the grounds phase of a TPR trial, the circuit court errs by directing a verdict in favor of the State without giving the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, has the court committed structural error, or is the error subject to a harmless error analysis?

2. If the error in this case is not structural, then was it harmless?

The latest edition of SCOWstats considers how our justices vote on 6th Amendment (fair trial) issues. Are Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Kelly more receptive to fair trial claims than the justices they replaced (Crooks and Prosser)? Click SCOWstats to find out.

He’s “rolling out wild, unprecedented” policies per this Slate article. Wild ideas like not offering the testimony of police officers known to be dishonest, or considering the economic cost of prison time when making sentencing recommendations. He just issued a memo to his staff saying his policies “are an effort to end mass incarceration and bring balance […]

On February 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9 (addressing guilty plea waiver rule and holding lawyers need not advice clients about DACA consequences of plea) State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12 (inaccurate advice about […]

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court decided U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, USSC No. 15-1509, 2018 WL 1143822, a bankruptcy case that we note here solely because it addresses a narrow issue that can matter to appellate litigators, civil and criminal: What is the standard of appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact? The answer: Well, it “depends,” though less so in the kind of constitutional questions criminal litigators often face.

Via this Scotusblog post, we learn the Law Library of Congress has made available digital versions of the U.S. Reports from the Founding Era onward to 2004, just in case you want to see a page image of some of your favorite Supreme Court decisions from those dusty old books lawyers used to have to consult. Terry […]

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2018 WI App 24, affirmed, 2019 WI 33; case activity (including briefs)

Because civil commitment is neither punishment nor a direct consequence of a guilty or no contest plea, a defendant entering an NGI plea does not have to be advised during the plea colloquy of the maximum term of commitment that could be ordered.

State v. Curtis L. Walker & State v. Omer Ninham, 2016AP1058 & 2016AP2098, Districts I & III, 3/6/18; case activity (including briefs): Walker; Ninham

Issue:

We certify these appeals to determine whether Wisconsin case law regarding life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers comports with recent pronouncements from the United States Supreme Court, and whether the sentencing courts in these cases adequately considered the mitigating effect of the defendants’ youth in accord with those Supreme Court pronouncements.

State v. Korry L. Ardell, 2017AP381-CR, District 1, 3/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Ardell was convicted of stalking in violation of § 940.32(2) for sending emails about N., a woman he had dated, to a former employer of N. (¶¶3-20). The court of appeals rejects his arguments that, under the plain language of the statute: 1) conduct or statements regarding N. but directed at a third party were irrelevant absent proof Ardell either intended such information to be passed on to the alleged victim or intended the third party to harass the alleged victim based on the information; and 2) the jury instructions failed to apprise the jury that the state had to prove that intent before they could convict him.