On Point

State v. William J. Drake, II, 2016AP724-CR, District 4, 2/2/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

It may be that Drake’s lawyer could have done a better job of looking into and advising him about the possibility his Huber privileges would be revoked, but that doesn’t mean counsel was ineffective. Thus, Drake doesn’t get to withdraw his pleas.

We now know who Trump’s nominee for SCOTUS is, but what do we know about him–particularly his views on issues concerning indigent defense? On Point has gathered a few links to resources that help answer that question. 

In case you missed Davorin Odrcic’s post regarding immigration enforcement on to WACDL’s listserv yesterday, he has authorized On Point to republish it here:

Professor Richard Leo has posted a lecture–soon to be a published research paper–titled “Police Interrogation, False Confessions and Child Abuse Cases” on SSRN. Click here for the lecture.

State v. Brianna L. Flahavan, 2016AP1133-CR, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make–bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake–if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”

—Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

State v. Elbe, 2016AP2012-2013, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The Elbes were charged with disorderly conduct back in 1996. They requested the appointment of counsel, but the trial court found that they were not indigent.  This caused them to plead no contest. Twenty years later they moved to vacate their convictions arguing that the 1996 decision violated their 6th Amendment right to counsel. They lost in the trial court and in the court of appeals.

State v. Jeff C. Hilgers, 2017 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Hilgers, a correctional officer at a county jail, had sex with an inmate while she was on home detention. He was properly convicted of second degree sexual assault under § 940.225(2)(h), which prohibits a correctional officer from having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with “an individual who is confined in a correctional institution.”

State v. Brandon M. Swiecichowski, 2016AP1808-CR, 1/25/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mr. Swiecichowski was pulled over after an officer saw his vehicle driving in a construction area signed as being closed to through traffic. Before pulling him over the officer ran his plates and found the vehicle to be registered to an owner who lived seven or eight miles away from the construction zone.

State v. Michael Chough, 2016AP406-CR, District 2, 1/25/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Chough’s challenge to the reliability of expert testimony regarding his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving fails under State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687.

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.