On Point

E.C. v. Susan Krueger, 2015AP2196, 12/13/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

E.C., an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s, planned for her future while she was still competent. She named her son, G.C., as her power of attorney for finances and health care. After she became incompetent, her family began fighting about her care. Krueger, E.C.’s daughter, filed a Ch. 54 guardianship proceeding. The issue in this case is whether Chapter 54 can trump a person’s advance planning.

State v. George W. Mallum, III, 2016AP765-CR, District 1, 12/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mallum was convicted of two counts of disorderly conduct arising out of a single incident, but because the charges were not identical in fact the convictions are not multiplicitous.

Lawrence Shaw v. United States, USSC No. 15-5991, 2016 WL 7182235 (December 12, 2016), vacating and remanding United States v. Shaw, 781 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2015); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

A unanimous Supreme Court holds that to be found guilty of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), which prohibits “knowingly execut[ing] a scheme … to defraud a financial institution” does not require proof the defendant intended that the financial institution—rather than, say, one of its depositors—be the principal victim of the fraud.

Introducing Immi.org–an online platform to help immigrants in the United States understand their legal options, find legal help, and protect their future. Try Immi in English or Spanish here.

The American Bar Association has some gift suggestions for the lawyer on your shopping list. For the overwhelmed, exhausted lawyer, the Ostrich Pillow forms an excellent barrier to the outside world, enabling a desktop power nap. Or how about a crystal ball so your lawyer can provide the most requested client service? Maybe your lawyer […]

How has your judge previously ruled on the type of motion you want to file? Who is the most influential judge on the 7th Circuit measured by citations? Ravel’ says its new court analytic empowers lawyers across the country to make data-driven decisions in their cases. Click here. According to Ravel’s website, it covers Wisconsin […]

State v. A.W., 2016AP121 through 125, 12/8/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

When A.W. did not appear for her pretrial and was not reachable by phone, the court entered a default finding as to grounds for a TPR. She moved to vacate that finding, but then withdrew her motion. On appeal, she argued that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for advising her to withdraw the motion to vacate, and (2) the circuit court should have vacated the default so that she could address false information admitted in her case. The court of appeals refused to address the 2nd argument for reasons that penalized A.W. for mistakes her appellate lawyer allegedly made.

State v. Terry S. Shannon, 2015AP922, 12/7/2016, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Terry Shannon appeals the denial of his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. He was convicted, at trial, of first-degree intentional homicide; he alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting that the jury be instructed on second-degree intentional.

State v. Travis J. Manteuffel, 2016AP96-CR, 12/6/16, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

State v. Elward, 2015 WI App 51, 363 Wis. 2d 628, 866 N.W.2d 756, held it an ex post facto violation to require misdemeanants to pay the $200 DNA surcharge where the law imposing it went into effect after they had committed their crimes.

State v. Anton R. Dorsey, 2015AP648-CR, District 3, 12/6/16 (per curiam; not citable as precedent or for persuasive value), petition for review granted, 4/10/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 10; case activity (including briefs)

You may not cite this per curiam opinion as binding precedent or for persuasive value in any Wisconsin court, see § 809.23(3)(b), but On Point is telling you about it because the court of appeals concludes that the purported “greater latitude” rule in § 904.04(2)(b)1. is not a codification of the “greater latitude” rule created by case law regarding admission of other acts evidence in child sex cases. While you can’t cite this decision for authority, you may and should use the court’s reasoning for its conclusion to counter the claim of a prosecutor or circuit judge that § 904.04(2)(b)1. codifies a “greater latitude” rule.