On Point

Here’s a fun story copied in from this week’s ABA Journal blawg!

Lawyer leaves $200K Ferrari in floodwaters to make it to hearing on time

Posted Jul 10, 2013 5:30 PM CDT
By Molly McDonough

Quite a buzz was created in Toronto this week when after torrential rains, a silver Ferrari was left stranded in a flooded underpass.  Click here.

State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; unanimous opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

In a case of interest primarily, if not exclusively, to lawyers handling postconviction proceedings in state courts, the supreme court holds Burton’s plea withdrawal motion was insufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing because it failed to allege sufficient facts to support either the ineffective assistance of counsel claim or the claim Burton’s plea was invalid because of a defective plea colloquy.

Tomorrow look for decisions in:

Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2012AP99,

Manitowoc County v. Samuel J.H., 2012AP665,

State v. Brandon M. Melton, 2011AP1770-CR/2100AP1771-Cr,

On Friday SCOW will release decisions in:

State v. Starks, 2010AP425

State v. Alexander, 2011AP394-CR

State v.

Dane County v. Sheila W., 2013 WI 63 (per curiam), affirming court of appeals summary disposition; case activity

The supreme court dismisses as moot a case presenting the questions of whether Wisconsin recognizes the “mature minor” doctrine, which permits a minor to give or refuse consent to medical treatment after a finding that she is sufficiently mature and competent to make the treatment decision, and whether a minor has a due process right to refuse medical treatment.

State v. Roy H. Beals, 2012AP1079-CR, District 2/1, 7/9/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Trial counsel in a sexual assault prosecution was not ineffective for failing to object to portions of two different video statements of the child victim (one from 2007, the other from 2009) because the evidence did not prejudice Beals. Trial counsel did object to the first 10 minutes of the 2007 video until after it had been played,

Do you take appellate appointments from the State Public Defender? Do you wonder what an SPD appellate appointment entails?  The resource you’ve been waiting for has finally arrived: Appellate Practice and Procedure for SPD-Appointed Counsel.  This handbook covers everything from issue spotting, to communicating with clients, postconviction motions, merit appeals, no-merit procedure, and petitions for review.  Plus, each chapter includes a helpful appendix of forms and checklists.  Whether you are new to SPD appeals,

By Adam Plotkin, SPD Legislative Liaison

With the budget and compensation plan through the legislature, and recently signed by the Governor, I wanted to recap the major provisions affecting the SPD in those two packages. Future articles will focus on other changes affecting the SPD’s legal practice; this is a review of those issues specific to our agency and its employees.

One of the most significant areas addressed by the budget and compensation plan is employee compensation.

State v. Neumann, 2011AP1044 and 2011AP1105, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity; majority opinion by C.J. Abrahamson.

In a 94-page decision, including a lone dissent by Justice Prosser, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has affirmed the 2nd degree reckless homicide convictions of Dale and Leilani Neumann for the death of their 11-year old daughter, Kara, who died of diabetic ketoacidosis caused by untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus.  

State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2013 WI 59 (per curiam), affirming, as modified, an unpublished court of appeals opinion; reconsideration granted, 2014 WI 16 (per curiam); Justices Prosser and Gableman not participating; case activity

(Note: On July 22, 2013, both Johnson and the state filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s original decision;

State v. Ladarius Marshall, 2012AP140-CR, District 1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court properly denied Marshall’s motion to suppress his statements to police made during on-again off-again interrogation lasting from 10:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The court first rejects Marshall’s argument he didn’t invoke his right to remain silent:

¶21      The circuit court found that Marshall never unequivocally and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.