On Point

City of Brookfield v. Cassandra L. Gissal, 2014AP1751-FT, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At trial Gissal challenged the admissibility of her statements to police because she wasn’t given Miranda warnings, but the trial court ruled she wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes. On appeal she abandons this claim and argues instead that allowing the officer to testify to her statements violated her Fifth Amendment privilege and that she wouldn’t have testified at trial if the officer had been barred from relating her statements.

Our very own Mike Tobin reports on last Thursday’s big win on expunction in SCOW. See Mike’s article for the Collateral Consequences Resource Center here.

Will Chief Justice Abrahamson lose her job in 2015? Click here for more.

AAG gets bench slapped because appellate record literally emits foul stench. Click here.

Are plea bargains confessions? Brandon Garrett says “no”. Click here.

Review of two court of appeals decisions (one published, one unpublished) that will be argued together.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?

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 (1997), or instead against statutory requirements,

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).