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
Restitution order upheld
State v. Guadalupe Ronzon, 2015AP498, 1/26/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Ronzon challenges the restitution award in her conviction of failing to fulfill her Wis. Stat. § 346.67 duty upon striking a vehicle with her car.
Quick acceleration, weaving in lane not enough to justify stop
City of West Allis v. Teresa A. Michals, 2015AP1688 & 2015AP1689, District 1, 1/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe Michals was operating while intoxicated or in a “disorderly manner” in violation of a city ordinance.
Failure to follow briefing rules gets appeal dismissed
City of Milwaukee v. Jerry D. Butler, 2015AP1537, 1/26/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A pro se appellant’s failure to comply with briefing rules results in his appeal being dismissed as “defective.” (¶11).
SCOTUS DIGs State’s petition challenging 7th Circuit grant of habeas relief
“DIGs” as in “dismisse[s] as improvidently granted,” that is, leaving the Seventh Circuit’s grant of habeas relief intact.
SCOTUS: Jury in capital case doesn’t need instruction on proof of mitigating circumstances
Kansas v. Carr, USSC Nos. 14-449, 14-450, 14-452, 2016 WL 228342 (January 20, 2016); reversing and remanding Kansas v. (Jonathan) Carr, 329 P.3d 1195 (Kan. 2014), Kansas v. (Reginald) Carr, 331 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2014), and Kansas v. Gleason, 329 P.3d 1102 (Kan. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
The Eighth Amendment does not require courts to instruct the jury deciding whether to impose the death penalty that the defendant does not have to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
No misuse of discretion in ordering juvenile to register as sex offender
State v. M. E.-T., 2015AP625, 1/20/15, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the circuit court’s rather evident prejudgment of the outcome, its “lengthy and well-reasoned” decision showed that it properly exercised its discretion in denying M. E.-T.’s motion to stay the requirement that he register as a sex offender.
Delinquency petition stated probable cause
State v. A.C., 2015AP1604, 1/20/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A petition alleging A.C. was delinquent contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause that A.C. acted as a party to the crime of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent.
Evidence was sufficient to prove OWI based on prescribed medication
County of Eau Claire v. Susan M. Sandas, 2015AP612 & 2015AP613, 1/20/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The evidence was sufficient to prove Sandas was operating while intoxicated due to her use of Oxycodone and Fluoxitine despite the testimony from her primary care doctor that he had no evidence she was abusing her prescriptions and testimony from a forensic scientist that those medications wouldn’t have caused the nystagmus observed by the arresting officer.
Expungement denied to defendant involved in BB shooting spree
State v. Mustafa Z. Abdel-Hamid, 2015AP1517-CR, 1/20/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity, including briefs
After being convicted of two counts of misdemeanor criminal damage to property, the defendant urged the court to grant expungement under Wis. Stat. §973.015. He pointed to his lack of criminal record, his excellent grades, his professional ambitions, and his remorse. The trial court denied expungement and the court of appeals affirmed.
Richard Mathis v. U.S., USSC No. 15-6092 , cert. granted 1/19/16
Whether a predicate prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act must qualify as such under the elements of the offense simpliciter, without extending the modified categorical approach to separate statutory definitional provisions that merely establish the means by which referenced elements may be satisfied rather than stating alternative elements or versions of the offense.
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.