On Point

State v. Carter, 2017 WI App 9, petition for review granted 5/15/17; case activity (including briefs)

This case is a companion to State v. Hager, in which the court held that the amended discharge statute does not require a committed person to prove he is not dangerous in order to get a discharge trial.

State v. David Hager, Jr., 2017 WI App 8, petition for review granted 5/15/17; reversed 4/19/18; case activity (including briefs)

This is the first (likely) published case to construe the 2013 amendments to the ch. 980 discharge petition standard. The court of appeals holds that while the legislature required a committed person seeking a discharge trial to meet a higher burden of production, it did not permit courts to deny a trial based on an assessment that the evidence as a whole favors the state.

State v. P.T., 2016AP1460, 1/24/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.T. challenged a circuit court decision terminating his parental rights to his son on 2 grounds: (1) his stipulation to ground for termination was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary under Bangert, and (2) the postdisposition court should not have reviewed the transcript of the stipulation colloquy when deciding issue (1). He lost on both counts.

State v. Patrick Kozel, 2017 WI 3, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision,  2016AP656-CR, 1/12/16; case activity (including briefs)

Kozel, arrested for OWI-2^nd and subjected to a blood draw by an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at a county jail, challenged the draw as violating §343.305(5)(b) (2011-12) and as unconstitutional, because  it was not performed  “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” ¶43, citing to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966).

State v. C.M., 2016AP1321, 1/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After charging J.M. in juvenile court with crimes ranging from child sexual assault to disorderly conduct, the State sought to waive J.M. into adult court by arguing that Lincoln Hills was not an appropriate place for C.M. because, according to the recent news reports, it is so awful. The circuit court cited the news reports in granting waiver. That was error, but it’s harmless because there are other facts in the record supporting the waiver decision.

Petition for review of State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, granted 1/18/2017; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the State’s petition for review):

Now that criminal defense attorneys are obligated to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of their pleas, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), should the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturn its decision in State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1, and reinstate the harmless error rule to prohibit a defendant who was aware of the potential immigration consequences of his plea from being able to withdraw the plea just because the circuit court failed to give a statutory immigration warning that complied with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c)?

State v. Christopher J. McMahon, 2015AP2632-CR, District 3, 1/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McMahon’s trial attorney wasn’t ineffective for failing to shield McMahon and another defense witness from impeachment using a prior conviction.

State v. L. H.-H., 2016AP917, 1/18/17, District 1 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H.H. seeks to withdraw his plea to the single T.P.R. ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. He contends he did not understand that a plea would result in a finding that he was an unfit parent; the court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s finding that he did.

Question presented:

Whether, when this court held in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), that an indigent defendant is entitled to meaningful expert assistance for the “evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense,” it clearly established that the expert should be independent of the prosecution.

Question presented:

Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases, as held by four other circuits and two state high courts.