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
State v. Shata, 2013AP1437-CR and State v. Ortiz-Mondragon, 2013AP2435-CR, petitions for review granted 12/18/14
Review of two court of appeals decisions (one published, one unpublished) that will be argued together. State v. Shata (case activity) and State v. Ortiz-Mondragon (case activity)
Issue in Shata (composed by On Point)
Whether the defendant, a foreign national, should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because his trial counsel failed to provide him with “complete and accurate” information about the deportation consequences of pleading guilty?
State v. Maltese Lavele Williams, 2014AP1099-CR, certification granted 12/18/14
Court of appeals request for certification granted; case activity Issue (per court of appeals certification) Whether, under the circumstances of this case, a suffiency of the evidence challenge requires an appellate court to measure the evidence against the instructions the jury received, as the court did in State v. Wulff, 207 Wis. 2d 143, 557 N.W.2d 813 […]
SCOW issues big win for young offenders seeking expungement
State v. Kearney W. Hemp, 2014 WI 129, 12/18/14, reversing a published court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity
At last, a unanimous SCOW decision settles how §973.015 is really supposed to work. Upon a young person’s successful completion of a sentence or probation, the detaining or probationary authority must issue a certificate of discharge to the court. This alerts the clerk to expunge the record. No petition is necessary. And once a court grants expungement, and the young person performs as required, the court cannot reverse its decision.
Police had reasonable suspicion to detain and probable cause to administer PBT
State v. Aaron J. Fuchs, 2014AP1041-CR, District 4, 12/18/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In assessing reasonable suspicion to detain Fuchs, police properly considered an allegation that Fuchs had been acting in “a violent and intoxicated” manner at a wedding reception before his contact with police; and based on all the circumstances, police had sufficient basis to administer a PBT.
Defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that amnesia affected his ability to mount a defense
State v. Geoffrey A. Herling, 2014AP565-CR, District 4, 12/18/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not err by requiring Herling to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had amnesia that prevented him from mounting an adequate defense.
Judge—not clerk—makes sentence credit determination
State v. Tahj E. Kitt, 2015 WI App 9; case activity
“When a convicted offender has put sentence credit at issue, the court—not the clerk—must make and explain the decision on how much sentence credit is to be awarded.” (¶2).
Police had sufficient basis to conduct stop and frisk
State v. Terrell D. Cobbs, 2014AP501-CR, District 2, 12/17/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop Cobbs and two companions and to conduct the pat-down search of Cobbs during which police discovered, opened, and searched Cobbs’ cigarette box, which contained marijuana.
SCOW to review John Doe proceedings
Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, Nos. 2013AP2504-2508-W; case activity (for 2013AP2504); Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, No. 2014AP296-OA; case activity; and Schmitz v. Peterson, Nos. 2014AP417-421-W; case activity (for 2014AP417)
The supreme court has granted review in some of the John Doe investigations into coordination of spending by candidate campaigns and independent groups. The long and varied list of issues presented (below the jump) is taken directly from the court’s order, which also includes directions regarding the briefing schedule, word limits, filings under seal, redaction and confidentiality of documents in the record in compliance with any secrecy orders. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Prosser concur in the grants, but write separately (pp. 7-12) to raise various legal and practical questions. Justice Bradley is not participating for reasons given in a letter appended to the order (pp. 15-18).
SCOW: “threat of suicide” ground for involuntary commitment does not require articulation of plan
Outagamie v. Michael H., 2014 WI 127, 12/16/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity
Section 51.20(1)(a)2.a authorizes the involuntary commitment of a person who is “dangerous,” a test that may be met by showing recent threats of, or attempts at, suicide. This unanimous decision holds that in the right circumstances just thinking about suicide–without articulating a plan for committing it–constitutes a sufficient “threat” to satisfy the involuntary commitment statute.
Sentencing court didn’t err in its interpretation or application of COMPAS report
State v. Jordan John Samsa, 2015 WI App 6; case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in using the criminogenic needs section of the COMPAS assessment report, which identifies areas in which the offender needs correctional or community intervention, as an indicator of Samsa’s danger to the community.
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.