On Point

Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2014AP1048, 4/1/15, District 2, click here for certification; certification granted 5/12/15, circuit court orders affirmed, 2016 WI 1

Issue

This appeal raises an important issue of first impression regarding the constitutionality of a mental health treatment statute related to inmates within the Wisconsin state prison system. The question presented is whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar) (2013-14) is facially unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds because it does not require that a court find an inmate dangerous prior to ordering the inmate civilly committed for treatment and authorizing the involuntary medication of the inmate. A definitive answer to this question from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, along with a clear statement as to the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to apply in such a case, would be of great value to the bench, the bar, the legislature, and the citizenry. Thus, we certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61.

Sheboygan County v. Terry L.M., 2014AP2010, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket

The court of appeals here rejects the County’s contention that it need not prove incompetency at a Chapter 55 commitment continuation hearing, but upholds the order for continued protective placement because Terry waived any errors in the jury instructions and special verdict and because the real controversy was tried.

County of Winnebago v. Joshua R. Hunter, 2014AP2628, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Hunter sought suppression of evidence supporting his conviction for OWI, and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, because law enforcement detained him for an unlawful length of time. His motion failed based on the court of appeals’ reading of the not-so-clear testimony at the suppression hearing.

State v. Kendra E. Manlick, 2014AP2138-CR, 2014AP2626-CR, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Manlick was charged with possession of a controlled substance and bail-jumping after an officer, who knew of her drug record, stopped the car she was driving based on an outstanding warrant for the car’s owner, observed unsterile hypodermic needles in it, and then conducted a search yielding additional incriminating evidence.  Manlick’s suppression and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on appeal.

State v. Zoltan M. Peter, 2014AP1589-CR, 1/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs and docket

Peter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. He moved to suppress the marijuana that the police seized from his car, arguably in violation of the plainharm view doctrine and lost. The court of appeals found the argument baffling.

State v. Clifton Robinson, 2014AP1575-CR, 3/31/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs and docket

The court of appeals here rejects a barrage of challenges to Robinson’s conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery with use of force–everything from a Batson challenge, to severance issues, to the sufficiency of evidence, to the admission of prejudicial evidence and more.

Grady v. North Carolina, USSC No. 14-593, 2015 WL 1400850, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing State v. Grady, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014) (unpublished order); docket

The Supreme Court holds that a state conducts a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attaches a device like a GPS bracelet to a person’s body without consent for the purpose of tracking the person’s movements.

Woods v. Donald, USSC No. 14-618, 2015 WL 1400852, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing Donald v. Rapelje, 580 Fed. Appx. 227 (6th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); docket

Trial counsel’s absence during about 10 minutes of testimony regarding evidence relating to Donald’s co-defendants—evidence trial counsel said he had “no interest in”—did not amount to a denial of counsel at a critical stage of trial justifying a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). Thus, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting Donald habeas relief on that ground.

County of Eau Claire v. Scott S. Mahler, 2014AP1696-FT, 3/31/15, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication) click here for docket and briefs

Mahler, who was arrested for OWI, refused to consent to a chemical test of his blood. The court of appeals found his refusal unreasonable even though the arresting officer failed to have Mahler sign the “Informing the Accused” form and Mahler testified that he did not understand the information on it.

Questions presented:

Whether the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances “need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the Eighth Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances

Whether the trial court’s decision not to sever the sentencing phase of the co-defendant brothers’ trial here—a decision that comports with the traditional approach preferring joinder in circumstances like this—violated an Eighth Amendment right to an “individualized sentencing” determination and was not harmless in any event.