On Point

court of appeals certification request; certification granted 2/25/13; case activity (Seaton); case activity (Pinno)

Issue Presented (from Certification): 

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

As suggested, in each of these consolidated cases the trial judge barred the public from the courtroom (during jury selection in each instance),

Robert Dietrich v. Smith, 7th Cir No. 12-1672, 12/4/12

seventh circuit decision, on habeas review, affirming 2011C117 (E.D. Wis 2/23/12); prior history: State v. Dietrich, Wis. App. 2008AP1697-CR

After the trial court denied his request for an in camera inspection of the sexual assault victim’s mental health records, State v. Green, 2002 WI 68,

State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2012AP1204-CR, District 3, 11/30/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court undertook an appropriate colloquy with Strong before allowing him to waive counsel and represent himself, leading to guilty pleas. The court thus rejects his claim that his pleas were premised on a violation of his right to counsel, ¶12.

Strong had an apparent change of heart after entering guilty pleas: he turned around and made a request for representation,

State v. Travis J. Guttu, 2012AP129-CR, District 3/4, 11/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

After entering guilty pleas to multiple counts, Guttu unsuccessfully sought presentencing plea-withdrawal. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw the pleas on different grounds, more particularly: counsel was ineffective for failing to assert Guttu’s lack of knowledge that his plea to one of the counts (sexual assault) subjected him to potential SVP commitment under ch.

State v. Shawn David Schulpius, 2012 WI App 134; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

SVP Discharge Hearing – Showing Required, § 980.09(2) 

Before granting discharge hearing on a ch. 980 petition, the circuit court must satisfy itself that the petition answers two concerns: First, under § 980.09(1) “paper-review” determination, the petition alleges sufficient facts to show that the petitioner no longer satisfies commitment criteria.

court of appeals publication orders, 11/29/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 119 State v. Marlee F. Devries

2012 WI App 120 Godfrey & Kahn, SC v. Circ. Ct. for Milw. Co.

2012 WI App 121  State v. Robert W. Schmitt

2012 WI App 122 Ardonis Greer v. Schwarz

2012 WI App 126 State v.

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity

Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection 

Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,

State v. Cecil Lennel Hudson, 2012AP702-CR, District 1, 11/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Hudson isn’t entitled to credit against his new (disorderly conduct) sentence because it runs consecutive to his old (ES-revocation) sentence:

¶9        At the time of Hudson’s plea and sentencing hearing on the disorderly conduct charge, Hudson’s trial counsel was aware that Hudson was going to be serving an additional eighteen months on the 2008 case.  

State v. Joel Steinhauer, 2012AP189-CR, District 3, 11/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

When the State fails to articulate the specific other acts testimony it seeks to adduce, the trial court acts within its discretion in ruling the testimony inadmissible without performing the 3-step analysis of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771–73, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

The Legislative Council study committees I mentioned in July are beginning to work on draft legislation that will be forwarded to the Legislature for its consideration early next year.

 Most of the legislation affects the SPD or our clients, but two drafts are particularly noteworthy at this point.

 First, WLC 0010/1, being considered by the Special Committee on Permanency for Young Children in the Child Welfare System, would return the ability for the SPD to represent adults in Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) proceedings.