On Point

Question presented:

Whether [Castleman’s] Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

Lower court opinion: United States v. James Alvin Castleman, 695 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This case will be important to federal practitioners who handle prosecutions under § 18 U.S.C.

Devoted readers of On Point and its predecessor, Case Summaries, have, on more than a few occasions, encountered a problem called “link rot.”  You’re reading a post.  It includes a hyperlink to a tantalizing source.  You click on it and get an error message.  Arghh!  On Point tries hard to catch and fix those links, but with several thousand posts and tens of thousands of hyperlinks we will never be able to update most of them.

Ozaukee County DHS v. Callen D.M., 2013AP1157, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Callen D.M. was not entitled to an instruction about the impossibility of meeting the conditions of a CHIPS order due to her incarceration, a TPR defense recognized in Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845:

¶13      The facts in Callen’s case stand in stark contrast to those in Jodie W.

Manitowoc County v. Ryan A. Spatchek, 2013AP986, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

An anonymous call to police dispatch said Spatchek was operating while intoxicated and that the caller was concerned for his safety and provided verifiable information as to Spatchek’s location  that was later confirmed by a deputy who subsequently found and followed Spatchek and made independent observations of his impaired driving (crossing the fog line approximately three times in one mile;

State v. Alejandro Rodriguez, 2013AP695-CR, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for deciding not to call Rodriguez’s girlfriend as a witness. Counsel advised Rodriguez he thought it was not in Rodriguez’s interests to have her testify because her recantations made her credibility suspect, she refused to talk to counsel before trial, and Rodriguez had a no-contact order pertaining to her,

State v. Jace H., 2012AP2479, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The state petitioned to waive Jace H. into adult court in two delinquency cases involving allegations of sexual assault of two different victims. (¶¶2-4). After the circuit court granted the waiver petition, Jace’s new lawyer determined–and the state conceded–the allegations in one of the cases occurred before Jace turned 15, a fact that precludes waiver under § 938.18(1)(c) (juvenile court may waiver jurisdiction over juvenile alleged to have violated a criminal law on or after his 15th birthday).

State v. Ali Mursal, 2013 WI App 125; case activity

Before accepting a defendant’s guilty or no contest plea the court is required to advise the defendant there may be immigration consequences. Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). While that statute prescribes a text for the required warning—complete with quotation marks—the court of appeals holds in this case that a judge’s failure to repeat that language verbatim is not by itself grounds for plea withdrawal.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin is about to hear arguments in 5 cases of interest to public defenders.  See the list of cases and issues below.  Perhaps you are wrestling with the same issue in one of your cases.  If so, click on the case name to get to the court docket and the parties’ briefs.

October 3rd

State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2010AP3016-CR.  On Point post here.

1.

State v. Roberta W., 2013AP936, District 1, 9/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that Roberta W. had failed to meet the conditions for the return of two of her other children under a CHIPS order in a different county because that evidence was relevant under La Crosse County Dept. of Human Servs.

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b)1. bar evidence of prior consensual sexual activity between a defendant and complainant in a case involving alleged forcible criminal conduct because the consensual conduct is not relevant to a material fact in the case?

Petitions for review are not electronically filed,