On Point

Manrique v. United States, USSC No. 15-7250, 2017 WL 1390728 (April 19, 2017), affirming United States v. Manrique, 618 Fed. App. 579 (11th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Lawyers handling federal criminal appeals, take note: This decision holds that, to challenge a deferred restitution order under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), that is entered in an amended judgment issued after the defendant has filed a notice of appeal, the defendant must file a second notice of appeal from the amended judgment containing the restitution amount.

State v. C.G.B., 2017 WI App 32; case activity

While the juvenile code gives a judge the authority to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition and refer the case for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) over the district attorney’s objection, State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, 262 Wis. 2d 200, 663 N.W.2d 757, the code does not give the judge the authority to dismiss a petition and order a consent decree over the DA’s objection.

State v. Thomas G. St. Peter, 2016AP683-CR, District 1, 4/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

St. Peter is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge violated his due process rights when it relied on inaccurate information to jump the parties’ joint recommendation for time served and impose more jail time. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1 (sentencing based on inaccurate information violates due process). Not only that, but the judge erroneously exercised his sentencing discretion by failing to link the relevant facts and factors of the case to the standard sentencing objectives. —And you thought an erroneous exercise of sentencing discretion was as mythical a beast as a unicorn!

State v. Kenneth William Jaworski, 2016AP5, District 1, 4/18/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state filed a ch. 980 commitment petition against Jaworski shortly before the mandatory release (MR) date the Department of Corrections had calculated for him. But DOC later realized it had miscalculated Jaworski’s MR date, which was actually about two months earlier than the date the petition was filed. DOC’s miscalculation (whether negligent or, as Jaworski argues, made in “bad faith”) doesn’t mean the petition was untimely because a ch. 980 petition may be filed anytime before the person is released or discharged from his predicate sexual offense sentences.

Marathon County v. P.X., 2016AP1490, 4/18/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

P.X., who has longstanding diagnoses of autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and intellectual disabilities, was the subject of a Chapter 54 guardianship and a Chapter 55 protective placement, when the County sought to extend his Chapter 51 civil commitment. P.X. argues that he is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51 because he is not “capable of rehabilitation” under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. Instead, the county is using medication to “control” his behavior.

The Marshall Project explores the problem of “drinking while jurying” here. Yes, it really happens.

It’s called Wisconsin Sentencing in the Tough-On-Crime Era: How Judges Retained Power and Mass Incarceration Happened Anyway. Click here for more details  about the book and here for a glowing review by the New York Journal of Books. Favorite book jacket quotes include: Serious students of modern sentencing reforms—as well as everyone eager to understand the […]

No, not juvenile court. “Young adult” court for 18 to 24 year olds. Several states have them. Because the brains of young adults are still developing,  some make dumb decisions. If they get saddled with a felony, they are unlikely to find jobs. You know where that leads. “Young adult” courts aim to stop the pernicious cycle. […]

A few weeks ago, SCOW issued Universal Processing Services v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, a 4-3 decision in which an unusual alignment of justices formed the majority opinion. SCOW watchers wondered: have these 4 justices ever joined forces in a 4-3 decision before? Today’s edition of SCOWstats answers that question and examines  4-3 alignments […]

State v. D.W., 2016AP1827, 4/11/17, District 1,(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The briefs in this TPR case are confidential, so we only know what the court of appeals’ opinion tells us about the case. D.W. apparently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his trial lawyer’s failure to call witnesses and failure to move to have his son’s (A.W.’s) placement changed to a family member. He also argued that his plea was defective. The court of appeals decision is long on facts, short on law, and essentially rubber stamps the Machner court’s findings without analysis.