On Point

State v. Nely B. Robles, 2013 WI App 76; case activity.

Issue:  When accepting a guilty plea is the circuit court required to specify whether the defendant is pleading to a felony or a misdemeanor?

Robles sought to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that the circuit court’s failure to specify the designation of the charged crime violated Wis. Stats.  § 971.08(1)(a)’s requirement that she be informed of the “nature of the charge.”  

State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2013 WI App 63, petition for review granted, affirmed, 2014 WI 27; case activity

The plain language of § 973.015 requires the circuit court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the defendant’s conviction can be expunged on successful completion of the sentence:

 ¶9        Matasek is correct that Wis.

Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC 11-9953, 4/29/13

United States Supreme Court order and opinions, dismissing, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari to review State v. Boyer, 56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

As explained in our post on the grant of certiorari, the issue was whether and how the state’s failure to fund indigent defense should count against the state in analyzing the defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim under Barker v.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the crime of distribution of drugs causing death under 21 U.S.C. § 841 is a strict liability crime, without a foreseeability or proximate cause requirement.

2. Whether a person can be convicted for distribution of heroin causing death utilizing jury instructions which allow a conviction when the heroin that was distributed “contributed to” death by “mixed drug intoxication,” but was not the sole cause of death of a person.

Adrian Moncrieffe v. Eric Holder, Attorney General, USSC 11-702, 4/23/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Moncrieffe v. Holder, 662 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2011)

In an important case for noncitizens charged with marijuana delivery or distribution offenses, the Supreme Court holds that a conviction for marijuana distribution under state law is not an “aggravated felony” that requires deportation if the conviction fails to establish the offense involved either remuneration or more than a “small amount”

Fond du Lac County v. Ian A. Niquette, 2012AP2708, District 2, 4/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had probable cause to have Niquette do a PBT despite his good performance on the field sobriety tests, applying State v. Felton, 2012 WI App 114, ¶10, 344 Wis. 2d 483, 824 N.W.2d 871:

¶5        …. Niquette crashed his truck into the back of a parked vehicle in a twenty-five-mile-per-hour speed zone with enough force to flip his vehicle onto its side.

City of Oshkosh v. Ernest D. Lehl, 2012AP2717, District 2, 4/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop and request Lehl to perform field sobriety tests because there were specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted the intrusion of the extended stop. State v. Post,

State v. Danny F. Anton, 2012AP1165-CR, District 2, 4/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel

In a fact-specific discussion that precludes summary here, the court of appeals holds Anton’s trial attorney was not ineffective for: failing to object to testimony about telephone calls between Anton and a detective, as the evidence was not prejudicial (¶¶10-13);

State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, on review of court of appeals certification; case activity

In a split decision, the supreme court holds that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the long-established procedure established by State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), even though the trial court misinformed him of the maximum penalty he faced:

¶8        We hold that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly,

State v. Taylor continues what the supreme court began in State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64:  Dismantling by implication the well-established Bangert procedures and creating new ways for trial courts to avoid evidentiary hearings on plea withdrawal motions.

Taylor’s motion clearly established enough to get an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. (¶75). So why didn’t he get one?