On Point

State v. Marcos Ordonia-Roman, 2012AP1371-CR, District 1/4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a motion to suppress Ordonia-Roman’s confession, trial counsel alleged that during his interrogation Ordonia-Roman was without a required medication and was not allowed to take the medication. At the suppression hearing, however, Ordonia-Roman testified he had been prescribed the medication,

Renee B. v. Dane County DHS, 2013AP2273, District 4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court’s decision to give grandparents notices of CHIPS hearings under the ch. 48 summons statute, § 48.27(2), doesn’t mean the grandparents have the right to intervene in the proceeding. While David S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis.

State v. Ivan Mendez, 2014 WI App 57; case activity

When Mendez pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug trafficking place his attorney failed to inform him that a conviction for charge would subject him to automatic deportation from the United States with no applicable exception and no possibility of discretionary waiver. Padilla v. Kentucky,

State v. Akil C. Jackson, 2014 WI App 50; case activity

Under State v. Carter, 2010 WI 132, 330 Wis. 2d 1, 794 N.W.2d 213, Jackson’s statutory summary suspension in Illinois resulting from an OWI and PAC citation counts as a prior conviction under § 343.307(1) even though the citation was eventually dismissed.

Carter considered whether a prior suspension of operating privileges under the Illinois “zero tolerance” law should be counted as a prior conviction under § 343.307. 

State v. Roddee W. Daniel, 2014 WI App 46, petition for review granted 9/18/14, modified and affirmed, 2015 WI 44; case activity

When postconviction counsel questions a defendant’s competency to understand his or her § 809.30 appellate rights or ability to effectively communicate with counsel but the defendant asserts he or she is competent, defense counsel has the burden of proving the defendant is incompetent by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

State v. John M. Navigato, 2012AP2108-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

State v. Teddy W. Bieker, 2012AP2693-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The circuit court, relying on the district attorney’s assertion of the so-called “interlocking confessions” doctrine, denied Navigato’s and Bieker’s motions to sever their trials on homicide,

State v. Marcus Norfleet, 2013AP2294-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had probable cause to arrest Norfleet for both eluding and operating while intoxicated under the totality of the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of arrest.

After an officer tried to stop a speeding car at around 1:00 a.m., the car accelerated,

State v. Anthony R. Giebel, 2013AP1874-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; c0urt of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Giebel challenged his misdemeanor repeater sentence based on the holding in State v. Gerondale, Nos. 2009AP1237/1238-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 3, 2009). While his appeal was pending, the court of appeals decided State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26,

A few links of possible interest to start the week:

A graphic illustration showing where and why prisoners are incarcerated in the United States, from the Prison Policy Initiative: Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie.

The latest from Michael O’Hear at the Marquette Law School who, with Darren Wheelock, of Marquette’s Department of Social & Cultural Sciences, has been studying Wisconsinites’ attitudes toward Truth-in-Sentencing: Imprisonment Inertia and Public Attitudes Toward “Truth in Sentencing”.

Issues Presented:

1.     Has the court of appeals effectively overturned this court’s precedent recognizing undue harshness as a ground for sentence modification?

2.   Is the time ripe for this court to put teeth in the McCleary-Gallion mandate that the appellate courts ensure that sentences – particularly sentences in the highest range – are rational and explainable?

Court of Appeals opinion: State v. Mark S. Rigdon,