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.
Eyewitness identification evidence; independent basis for identification despite suggestive identification procedure
State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12
court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity
Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that the in-court identification was tainted because the photo array was unduly suggestive.
Refusal, § 343.305 – Discretionary Authority to Dismiss
State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2012AP1426, District 4, 12/6/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 6/13/13; reversed, 2013 WI 106; case activity
A circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge, § 343.305, after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI, State v. Brooks,
Search & Seizure – Consent; Guilty Plea – Factual Basis Review; Postconviction Discovery
State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Search & Seizure – Consent
Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:
¶16 … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’” Artic,
State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2012AP918 / State v. Nancy J. Pinno, 2011AP2424-CR, District 2, 12/5/12
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),
Sentencing – Due Process – In Camera Hearing, Privileged Information
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,
Counsel – Waiver, Self-Representation – Presentencing Plea-Withdrawal
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,
Plea-Withdrawal – Ineffective Assistance – Ch. 980-Eligibility
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.
SVP Discharge Hearing – Showing Required, § 980.09(2)
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, 11/12
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.
Complaint – Adequate Notice; Jury Instructions – Authorizing Guilty Verdict on Speculation
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,
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.