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.
US Supreme Court dismisses case alleging a speedy trial violation based on delay due to state’s failure to fund indigent defense
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.
Marcus A. Burrage v. United States, USSC 12-7515, cert granted 4/29/13
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.
US Supreme Court rules that not every state marijuana trafficking conviction subjects a noncitizen to automatic deportation
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”
Traffic stop — OWI — probable cause to request PBT
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.
Reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop to investigate OWI
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,
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to object to or present evidence. Sentencing — exercise of discretion
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);
Wisconsin Supreme Court denies defendant plea withdrawal though trial court misstated maximum sentence
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,
What are the implications of Taylor for practitioners?
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?
Warrantless search of home was not justified under community caretaker doctrine
State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity
The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine:
¶37 …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering the apartment, addressing the apparent domestic situation, and making a reasonable assessment of the need for any further assistance or protection,
State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, petition for review granted, 4/18/13
Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the circuit court’s answer to a question posed by the jury during deliberations allow the jury to base its verdict on speculation and conjecture?
Because petitions for review are not available on the court’s website, the issue statement was composed based on the court of appeals’ decision and the parties briefs.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.