On Point

By MICHAEL TOBIN, Deputy State Public Defender

The historic U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright was a major step towards fairness and equality in our criminal justice system.  This year’s 50th anniversary of the decision gives us reason to reflect on the effect of the decision.

Clarence Earl Gideon filed a handwritten petition challenging his conviction because the State of Florida had denied him the right to counsel. 

On February 20, the Governor introduced his proposal for the 2013-2015 biennial budget.  The items specific to the State Public Defender agency are a positive first step in the process.  Here is a brief list of those major provisions:

1.  Pay Progression for ASPDs

• The system is similar in structure to the bill that was proposed last session
• Attorneys move up to the next step on a newly-created seventeen step ladder
• Both ADAs and ASPDs received full funding,

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2013 WI 23, affirming 2012 WI App 10; case activity

Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible as rebuttal evidence

The trial court excluded the state from presenting fingerprint evidence in its case-in-chief because the state failed to properly disclose the evidence under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(g). But after Novy testified, the court allowed the state to put the evidence in during its rebuttal case.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

1.  Where a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?

2. Did the court of appeals err in holding any error harmless where we do not know precisely what Mr.

Racine County v. Kimberly M.K. and Jessie R.R., 2012AP1346, District 2, 2/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

TPR – injunction terminating visitation during proceedings

An injunction prohibiting visitation is authorized in involuntary TPR proceedings if the prohibition is in the best interests of the child. Wis. Stat. § 48.42(1m)(c). Section 48.42 does not define “best interests,” but case law establishes that there must be a showing of a risk of harm to the child before terminating parent-child visitation.

State v. Ryan L. Kohlhoff, 2012AP1144-CR, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Plea withdrawal – information about collateral consequences of plea

Plea colloquy telling Kohlhoff that, if he pled no contest to a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence, he would “lose [his] right to carry a firearm under federal law” accurately informed Kohlhoff of the collateral consequences of his plea,

State v. Amanda Kratochwill, 2012AP2076-CR, District 4, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police  had probable cause to arrest Kratochwill for OWI where:

• Car was stopped for speeding (¶2);
• Upon  approaching the car the officer noted a strong smell of intoxicants and an open beer in the front passenger cup holder (¶2);
• When told she was speeding,

State v. Heather Tollefson, 2012AP1641-CR, District 4, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A police officer had probable cause to stop Tollefson for failing to fully stop for a flashing red traffic light. The officer saw a red vehicle approach an intersection with flashing red lights in each direction. (¶3). A gray vehicle followed behind the red vehicle. (¶3). The red vehicle stopped before going through the intersection;

City of Oshkosh v. Eric Carley, 2012AP2043, District 2, 2/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police officer had probable cause to stop Carley after he saw Carley drive in the left lane to go around a turning vehicle, but did so within several car lengths of oncoming traffic before moving back into the right lane. (¶2). The officer’s observations gave him probable cause to stop Carley because he had reason to believe Carley had violated Wis.