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.
Counsel – Substitute; Jury Selection – Forfeiture of Issue; Other Acts Evidence; Sentencing
State v. James E. Emerson, 2011AP1028-CR, District 3, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Counsel – Substitute
Given findings made by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing, the court of appeals upholds denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw: counsel was prepared for trial; “(t)his was a dilatory tactic by the defendant,” on the eve of trial after the charge had been pending for some time;
Effective Assistance – Discovery
State v. Eric Dominique Lesueur, 2011AP1550-CR, District 3, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
By not asserting a discovery violation, for the State’s failure to provide a CD of a witness interview, trial counsel waived any potential issue, and review is limited to counsel’s effectiveness, ¶5. Lesueur can’t meet his burden of IAC-prejudice:
¶8 Lesueur did not establish Strickland prejudice.
Effective Assistance of Counsel – Sentencing
State v. Troy D. Jefferson, 2011AP1778-CR, District 1, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the sentencing court “about Jefferson’s good character and positive social history.”
¶17 Specifically, trial counsel’s failure to inform the trial court about Jefferson’s good character and positive social history in any meaningful way was deficient because it was not,
Transcript
Samex 1, LLC v. Bruce Buschman, 2011AP2634, District 1, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication)
¶2 n. 1:
If this appeal were not moot, our resolution of the appeal would have been difficult, if not impossible, because the transcript is not very helpful; there are more than two-dozen instances of “(Indiscernible)” or “(indiscernible)” in but a twenty-one page transcript. Additionally, one of the sworn witnesses is merely identified as “A FEMALE.” (Bolding omitted.) The circuit court is responsible for the court reporter assigned to its court,
Arrest – Probable Cause
State v. Matthew Owen Hoff, Jr., 2011AP2096-CR, District 3, 6/26/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶19 Here, before arresting Hoff, Gostovich observed him sleeping behind the wheel of a running car that was parked horizontally against the vertical parking stalls. Hoff did not awake to Gostovich’s shouting or knocking. When he finally awoke, he was disorientated and confused, and that disorientation “did not dissipate.” Hoff’s speech was slowed,
The Plotkin Analysis: access to evidence in child pornography cases
Now that session has ended and new laws (a “brief” list can be found on SPD Connections at http://intranet.opd/html/legup/Low.pdf) are in effect, we are looking to quantify the effect of these laws to be able to demonstrate the impact of new criminal penalties and procedures to the Legislature in the future.
Often we can track simple data like case openings through eOPD, but sometimes that is difficult. One case in point is the changes to access to evidence for the defense in child pornography cases.
Confrontation – Expert Testimony
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268
A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion should be approached with the following principle in mind,
Sex Offender Registration, § 973.048(1m): “Sexually Motivated” Conduct
State v. Willie H. Jackson, 2012 WI App 76 (recommended for publication); case activity
§ 973.048(1m) (2003-04) authorizes the sentencing court to require sex offender registration under § 301.45 for conviction of enumerated crimes, “if the court determines that the underlying conduct was sexually motivated as defined in s. 980.01(5)” and public protection would be advanced thereby. (“Sexually motivated,” as might be imagined, means that “sexual arousal or gratification”
Probable Cause to Arrest, OWI
Marquette County v. Carl G. Culver, 2011AP1523, District 4, 6/21/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The police had probable cause to arrest Culver, the driver in a one-car accident, given the smell of intoxicants on his breath and his “inconsistent answers” to questions about the accident:
¶13 We conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that the facts known to Sergeant McCoy at the time he placed Culver under arrest,
Sentencing, Expungement, § 973.015(1)(a) (2009-10): Retroactivity
State v. Nathan J. Meinhardt, 2012 WI App 82 (recommended for publication); case activity
Amendments to § 973.015(1)(a) (2009-10), which expanded the offender’s age-ceiling and the eligible pool of offenses, doesn’t apply retroactively.
¶3 The determinative issue in this case is whether the circuit court has the authority to apply the amended version of Wis. Stat.§ 973.015(1)(a) retroactively to Meinhardt’s case. The question of whether a statute can be applied retroactively is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.
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.