On Point

Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12

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

Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct 

Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against argument they “amounted only to a single act of contempt because they took place during a short period of time.”

State v. Robert M. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (recommended for publication); case activity

Although “the summons, complaint and the supporting affidavit must each be authenticated as a condition of personal jurisdiction when commencing a forfeiture action,” ¶1,  an authentication defect attributable to a clerk’s error is merely technical and doesn’t impair jurisdiction.

¶4        In Schmitt’s case, the first page of the summons and the first page of the complaint were each authenticated,

Question Presented:

Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 2011)

Scotusblog page

The issue appears to be whether inability to assign counsel is a “systemic breakdown”

Question Presented:

Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.

Docket

Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))

Scotusblog page

Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,

County of Marathon v. Paul R. DeBuhr, District 3, 2011AP2959, 10/2/12

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

¶13      At the outset, we observe that DeBuhr was given the opportunity to raise his concerns about Hackworthy’s testimony and retrograde extrapolation in the circuit court but failed to do so.  DeBuhr never responded to the County’s brief in support of admitting the testimony and never offered any argument in support of his earlier assertion that he believed retrograde extrapolation was “not proper science.”  As a result,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

State v. Frederick L. Lucht, 2011AP1644-CR, District 4, 9/27/12

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

The record supports the existence of an agreement between Lucht and another to commit the crime of first-degree intentional homicide.

¶28      Lucht refers us to cases standing for propositions that a conspiracy cannot be based on a mere “agreement to negotiate,” see United States v.

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by on Point) 

1. Whether Burton is entitled to a Machner hearing on his postconviction motion asserting that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that Burton could pursue a bifurcated (NGI) plea along with his guilty plea, and have a jury determine whether he was not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

court of appeals publication orders, 9/27/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 99 State v. Michael Anthony Lock

2012 WI App 101 State v. Mark M. Benson

2012 WI App 103 State v. Cody A. Gibson

2012 WI App 104 State v. Jason M. Jacobs

2012 WI App 105 State v.

State v. Pamela L. Hammersley, 2012AP1131-CR, District 2, 9/26/12

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

Stop of vehicle, assertedly for violating local trespassing ordinance, held not supportable:

¶3        It is settled law that a stop cannot be based on an officer’s mistaken understanding of the law.  State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 3-4, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct.