On Point

State v. Timothy P. Gregory, 2016AP1265-CR, District 2, 3/14/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In this lengthy decision, the court of appeals rejects multiple challenges Gregory makes to his convictions for child sexual assault that occurred in 1997.

State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 2017AP208-CR, certification granted 3/14/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from certification)

If a search warrant issued under Wis. Stat. § 968.12 for the placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a motor vehicle is not executed within five days after the date of issuance per Wis. Stat. § 968.15(1) is the warrant void under § 968.15(2), even if the search was otherwise reasonably conducted?

State v. Shawn T. Wiskerchen, 2016AP1541-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; affirmed 1/4/19; case activity (including briefs).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State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity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 back to sentencing.” Read the whole thing; it’s fascinating to consider the wide range of approaches available to the most powerful actor in the system.

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 consequences of going to trial invalidated plea)

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 v. Ohio, perhaps. Or Miranda v.

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.