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.
Paul Eichwedel v. Chandler, 7th Cir No. 09-1031, 8/29/12
Habeas – Procedural Default Defense: Waiver by State
Procedural default (here, failure to perfect the appeal in state court, hence failure to exhaust the claim) is an affirmative defense which may be forfeited or waived by the State. The State expressly waived any failure-to-exhaust objection, hence the court proceeds to the merits.
Habeas – PLRA and Right to Access the Courts
During the course of litigating an otherwise unrelated 42 U.S.C.
Delinquency Proceedings – Disposition
State v. Noah L., 2012AP348, District 2, 8/29/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
After finding the proof sufficient to support a delinquency allegation, the trial court nonetheless declined to enter adjudication of delinquency, pending a report and recommendation from the Department of Human Services. The report was prepared, which included information not admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing, and the court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 8/12
court of appeals publication orders, 8/29/12
On Point posts:
2012 WI App 89 State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller
2012 WI App 90 State v. Terry G. Vollbrecht
2012 WI App 93 State v. Troy L. Cameron
2012 WI App 95 State v. Brandon M. Melton
TPR – Best Interest of Child
State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶11 Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s best interest. Effectually, Robert argues that the trial court did not properly consider the factors set forth in Wis.
Traffic Stop – Headlights Off
State v. Eric K. Fredlund, 2012AP742-CR, District 2, 8/22/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
An officer’s observation that a vehicle’s headlights “just appear[ed],” such that the officer couldn’t tell if the vehicle had been traveling down the roadway without lights, supported a traffic stop.
¶6 From the deputy’s observation of Fredlund’s vehicle at around “4 or 4:30 in the morning,” a reasonable officer could reasonably infer that Fredlund was violating the law by driving down the highway without the vehicle’s headlights turned on.
Terry Stop – Burden of Proof – Test
State v. Paul J. Mayek, 2012AP398-CR, District 3, 8/21/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶8 Although we have concluded Rasmussen did not seize Mayek until after he approached Mayek’s vehicle, it is impossible to tell from Rasmussen’s testimony precisely when the seizure occurred. Neither the parties, nor the circuit court, appear to have given serious consideration to the issue. Rasmussen was not questioned about what took place after he approached Mayek’s vehicle.
Joshua Resendez v. Wendy Knight, 7th Cir No. 11-1121, 8/20/12
Habeas Review – Right to Counsel – Collateral Attack
Resendez litigated an unsuccessful pro se challenge to revocation of his state court parole, on the ground that he had completed service of that sentence therefore wasn’t in fact on parole. Forced to litigate the issue on his own, he argues on federal habeas that he was denied his right to counsel.
“[A] criminal defendant enjoys [a] right to counsel through his first appeal of right .
Tenisha Carter v. Thompson, 7th Cir No. 11-2202, 8/14/12
Habeas Review – Confessions – Voluntariness
Given the deferential nature of habeas review, the state court reasonably determined that a 16-year-old’s confession after 55 hours of interrogation was voluntary:
Particularly in light of the highly deferential standard due to the state court, we have no reason to doubt that it took into account all of the relevant facts, highlighting only those that seemed especially pertinent to the voluntariness of the confession.
Christopher Mosley v. Atchison, 7th Cir No. 12-1083, 8/6/12
Habeas Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction
Where a party has filed a timely notice of appeal to a judgment, and the district court subsequently enters an amended judgment nunc pro tunc (“now for then”) conforming language in the original judgment, an amended notice of appeal isn’t necessary to confer appellate jurisdiction:
… The district court’s February 3, 2012 judgment thus had retroactive legal effect back to August 26,
Sentencing – Bifurcated, Enhanced Misdemeanor
State v. Lavon J. Ash, Sr., 2012AP381-CR, District 2, 8/15/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Ash was sentenced to concurrent terms of one-year initial confinement, one-year extended supervision on two misdemeanor counts, a sentence structure he successfully challenges. Incompatible statutory mandates lie at the heart of the problem. In the first instance, § 973.01(1) requires bifurcated misdemeanor sentences, which simply isn’t possible for unenhanced misdemeanors: a bifurcated sentence must be served in prison,
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.