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.
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop, OWI – Informant’s Tip
State v. Michael P. Green, 2011AP2137-CR, District 2, 8/8/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity
Traffic stop, based on report by gas station attendant of suspected drunk driver, was sufficiently reliable to support investigatory stop.
¶10 This court has previously held that a tip shows sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when the informant identifies himself or herself to the dispatcher,
Self-Representation
State v. Anthony S. Irving, 2011AP1908-CR, District 2, 8/8/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation, State v. Imani, 2010 WI 66, ¶20, 326 Wis. 2d 179, 786 N.W.2d 40, but it must be triggered by a “clear and unequivocal” request for self-representation, State v. Darby,
TPR – Best Interests Determination
Grant Co. DSS v. Elizabeth M. R., 2012AP1059, District 4, 8/9/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
By failing to consider whether the child had a substantial relationship with the parent, § 48.426(3), the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in concluding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s bests interests.
¶16 In Margaret H.,
Supreme Court Justice Recusal
Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 104 (Justice Gableman); case activity; companion decisions: 2012 WI 103; 2012 WI 69, 2012 WI 43
¶1 On May 8, 2012, I received a letter from Kevin P. Reak, counsel for Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filed with the court, requesting that I recuse myself from participation in the captioned matter.
Serial Litigation Bar
State v. Tracy A. Stokes, 2011AP2379-CR, District 1, 8/7/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Stokes’ § 974.06 motion didn’t “set forth any reason, much a sufficient reason, for failing” to raise in his prior postconviction motion the issues presently raised, therefore the issues are procedurally barred, State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994),
Other-Acts Evidence: Criminal-Enterprise Activity; Exculpatory Evidence: Disclosure in Fact Made; Appellate Procedure: Incomplete Record Supports Trial Decision
State v. Michael Anthony Lock, 2012 WI App 99 (recommended for publication); case activity
Other-Acts Evidence
Lock was tried and convicted for homicide, kidnapping and possession with intent to deliver. The State elicited testimony from numerous witnesses to the effect that Lock headed a vast criminal enterprise, of which these crimes were a part in that the two homicide victims were drug dealers, whom Lock killed (or ordered killed) over drug money.
Stephen Toliver v. Pollard, 7th Cir No. 11-1577, 8/6/12
seventh circuit court of appeals decision, affirming habeas grant following remand in 539 F.3d 766 (further case history: here)
Habeas Review – Evidentiary Hearing
The rule of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), that 2254(d)(1) review is limited to the state-court record, doesn’t apply where the state court didn’t address a component part of the claim (here,
Steven R. Rann v. Atchison, 7th Cir No. 11-3502, 8/3/12
seventh circuit court of appeals decision
Habeas Review – IAC/Suppression Claim, Generally
Under Strickland, Rann must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Grosshans, 424 F.3d at 590 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in habeas petitions, however, we must honor any reasonable state court decision,
Lawrence Coleman v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 10-1437, 8/3/12
seventh circuit court of appeals decision
Habeas Review – Miranda-Edwards
Coleman’s argument that his confession violated Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (interrogation must cease immediately if suspect requests counsel) was rejected by the state court based upon a determination that he did not in fact assert his to counsel. Denial of relief is affirmed:
Coleman admits but downplays the crucial difference here: In Edwards,
Albert West v. Symdon, 7th Cir No. 11-1172
seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in 2008AP2735-CRNM (summary order)
Habeas Review – Speedy Trial
Habeas relief denied on speedy trial challenge to 14-month delay between filing of complaint and scheduled start of trial, applying familar 4-part test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Although the first three aspects of the test work in West’s favor (length of,
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.