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
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State v. Vicente Paul Vento, 2012AP1763-CR, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Invoking its discretionary reversal power, the court of appeals holds Vento is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice on the issue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 […]
Ch. 51 mental health commitment — sufficiency of the evidence
Winnebago County v. Gina A.R., 2013AP226, District 2, 5/22/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activty The court rejects Gina A.R.’s claim that the evidence at the final hearing was insufficient to show she is mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous, noting that much of her argument discusses facts […]
Traffic forfeiture — speeding — defense of “necessity”
State v. Tammy S. Camden, 2012AP1451, District 4, 5/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court concluded a driver’s speeding was legally justified after accepting her testimony that she exceeded the speed limit in order to get away from a vehicle following in close proximity and copying her every […]
TPR — failure to assume parental responsibility: sufficiency of evidence; constitutionality of ground as applied
Langlade County DSS v. Michael P., 2013AP385, 2013AP386, & 2013AP387, District 3, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP385; 2013AP386; 2013AP387 Sufficiency of evidence Based on the entire record of the fact-finding hearing, the court of appeals concludes there was sufficient evidence that Michael P. failed to assume parental responsibility, […]
TPR — dispositional hearing; proper exercise of discretion
State v. Marquese H., 2013AP565, 2013AP566, & 2013AP567, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP565; 2013AP566; 2013AP567 The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Marquese H.’s parental rights because it considered the factors under § 48.426(1). The court rejects Marquese’s specific claim that the circuit court erred […]
Exasperated, District 3 penalizes all parties to appeal
Loren H. Laufman v. North Central Power Co., Inc., 2012AP2116, District 3 (per curiam; not eligible for publication or citation). Normally, On Point would not trouble its readers with a per curiam decision involving insurance coverage issues. This one, however, penalizes parties for violations of Wisconsin’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, so appellate lawyers of all […]
Fernandez v. California, USSC No. 12-7822, cert granted 5/20/13
Question presented: Proper interpretation of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), specifically whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant’s previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is […]
US Supreme Court: Retroactive application of state court decision rejecting diminished capacity defense is not a basis for federal habeas relief
Linda Metrish, Warden v. Burt Lancaster, USSC 12-547, 5/20/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Lancaster v. Metrish, 683 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2012) In a unanimous opinion issued only a month after oral argument, the Supreme Court holds that a state prisoner is not entitled to federal habeas relief based on the retroactive application […]
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.