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
Courts had no jurisdiction to consider plea withdrawal motion filed more than five years after sentencing
State v. Juan M. Rodriguez-Faustino, 2012AP2777, District 1, May 29, 2013; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Rodriguez-Faustino pled to a misdemeanor drug offense and, in January 2007, was placed on probation for 12 months. (¶¶4-5). In September 2012 he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, asserting his attorney was […]
TPR — consideration of parent’s incarceration; exercise of discretion at disposition
State v. Roy W., 2013AP413, District 1, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity The court of appeals rejects Roy W.’s arguments that “virtually every” factor under § 48.426(3) weighed in his favor and that the only ground for terminating his parental rights was his sixteen month prison sentence. (¶1). Based on a lengthy […]
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Jury instruction that added a requirement for proof that is not in the statutes was harmless error
State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, on review of published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack Beamon was tried for fleeing an officer under § 346.04(3), which requires proof that the person knowingly fled or attempted to elude an officer in one of three ways: 1) by willful or […]
Interstate Agreement on Detainers — delivery of request for disposition to prosecuting officer; applicability of substantial compliance doctrine
State v. Ervin Thomas, 2013 WI App 78; case activity The trial court properly calculated the 180-day speedy trial time limit from the prosecutor’s actual receipt of Thomas’s demand for disposition, and not from the receipt of the demand three days earlier by the county courthouse’s “Information Management Services Distribution” [sic] office. Under § 976.05(3)(a) and State v. […]
Court of appeals tosses jury verdict in CHIPS case
Polk County v. Norman S., 2012AP2801, District 3, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity. Given the court of appeals’s highly deferential standard of review for jury verdicts, it doesn’t throw them out very often. In this case, it did. A jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Norman […]
Is cell tower tracking “junk science”?
Now that Wisconsin follows Daubert, perhaps you can challenge the cell tower tracking evidence the State plans to present in your case as “junk science.” Click here for an ABA Journal story about how to do it. According to defense expert Michael Cherry: “No one who understands the relevant science would ever claim that data […]
U.S. Supreme Court holds that a showing of “actual innocence” allows consideration of merits of habeas petition filed after expiration of time limit
McQuiggin v. Floyd Perkins, USSC No. 12-126, 5/28/13 United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding Perkins v. McQuiggin, 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012) In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995), and House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518 (2006), the Court held that a convincing showing of “actual innocence” enabled habeas […]
U.S. Supreme Court: habeas petitioner’s procedural default may be excused if state rules do not offer defendants meaningful opportunity to present IAC claim on direct appeal
Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 11-10189, 5/28/13 United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding 449 Fed. Appx. 145 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2011) Last term in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), a case arising out of Arizona, the Court held that where a state’s rules of appellate procedure allowed a state […]
Rosemond v. United States, USSC No. 12-895, cert granted 5/28/13
Question presented: Whether the offense of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2, requires proof of (i) intentional facilitation or encouragement of the use of the firearm, as held by the First, […]
New trial in the interest of justice ordered for defendant who raised NGI defense
State v. Vicente Paul Vento, 2012AP1763-CR, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Invoking its discretionary reversal power, the court of appeals holds Vento is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice on the issue of his mental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 971.15 because the trial court […]
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.