Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Officer’s mistakes in entering license plate number for registration check didn’t invalidate stop
State v. Michael L. Joy, 2015AP960-CR, District 3, 7/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer’s multiple good-faith factual mistakes didn’t invalidate his stop of a truck to investigate a possible registration violation.
Judge’s “improper extraneous comments” require new sentencing hearing
United States v. Billy J. Robinson, Jr., 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Case No. 15-2019, 2016 WL 3947808, 7/22/16
A federal district judge’s sentencing comments “strayed so far from the record” that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals “cannot trace the (legitimate) reasons for Robinson’s sentence” and therefore Robinson is entitled to resentencing.
Federal judge who entered state judgment against inmate can’t hear inmate’s habeas petition
Robertson Fowler, III, v. Keith Butts, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 15-1221, 2016 WL 3916012, 7/20/16
The Seventh Circuit holds a federal judge is always disqualified from hearing a collateral attack on a judgment he or she entered or affirmed as a state judge.
A tale of two courts
The State of Wisconsin charged 3 young men–Jarrett Adams, Dmitri Henley, and Rovaughn Hill–with 5 counts of second degree sexual assault. Henley and Adams were jointly tried, jointly convicted and sentenced to 20 and 28 years in prison respectively. In a separate trial, Hill presented a new and critical witness to corroborate the defense claimed by all three defendants: the sexual encounter at issue was consensual. Hill’s case ended in a dismissal. Adams and Henley filed postconviction motions alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the same critical witness at their trial. They lost and filed federal habeas petitions.
Commissioner’s proposed findings on restitution don’t get de novo review by circuit court
State v. Pagenkopf, 2015AP1855-CR, 7/21/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Per §973.20(13)(c)4, a court commissioner held a hearing and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that Pagenkopf pay $19,274.69 in restitution. Pagenkopf sought de novo review via §757.69(8), which provides that a “decision” by a court commissioner shall be reviewed by the circuit court upon the motion of any party. According to the court of appeals, §757.69(8) does not apply to a commissioner’s restitution findings.
Arrest, conviction of unconscious driver upheld
State v. Mark G. McCaskill, 2015AP1487-CR, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McCaskill’s challenges to his arrest and conviction for operating with a prohibited alcohol content don’t persuade the court of appeals.
Fourth § 974.06 motion is barred under Escalona-Naranjo
State v. Jermaine D. Greer, Sr., 2015AP692, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Greer filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under § 974.06. It is his fourth postconviction motion and—like his third postconviction motion, which he also filed pro se—it argued he is entitled to withdraw his pleas. Greer doesn’t explain why the […]
Statute creating both misdemeanor and felony offense isn’t subject to rule of lenity, doesn’t violate due process or equal protection
State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2016 WI App 61, petitions for review and cross-review granted 1/9/2017, affirmed 2017 WI 74, ; case activity (including briefs)
Lazo Villamil was convicted and sentenced for operating after revocation and causing death under § 343.44, one of the provisions of which says that the offense is both a misdemeanor and a felony. He claims that convicting and sentencing him for the felony rather the misdemeanor violated the rule of lenity and his rights to due process and equal protection. The court of appeals disagrees, but grants resentencing due to the circuit court’s failure to consider certain sentencing factors..
Defense wins Machner hearing on McNeely issue
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP6-CR,7/20/16, Distrct 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here holds that Dalton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing move to suppress the test results from a warrantless blood draw. The record contains no evidence that exigent circumstances existed a la Missouri v. McNeely, and the officer who ordered the draw gave no indication that he ever considered seeking a warrant.
Pro se defendant wins motion to vacate revocation order
State v. Michael R. Hess, 2015AP2423, 7/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication) case activity
A decade after the circuit court entered a default judgment and revoked Hess’s license due to a drunk-driving event, he filed a motion to vacate per §806.07(1)(h). He claimed that he was not served with the notice of intent to revoke required by §343.05 and due process. On appeal Hess prevails in an opinion reaffirming that there is no deadline for filing a motion to vacate a void judgment.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.