On Point

State v. James Lee Johnson, 2012 WI App 21 (recommended for publication); for Johnson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The guilty plea colloquy was defective, in that it failed to advise Johnson that the trial court wasn’t obliged to follow the terms of the plea bargain (here: to dismiss and read-in a count), contrary to State v. Hampton,

State v. Kwesi B. Amonoo, 2011AP566, District 1, 1/24/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Amonoo: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity

Amonoo fails to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with respect to pretrial identification procedure (context: “sufficient reason” to overcome serial litigation bar following direct appeal):

¶15      Amonoo contends that of all the persons pictured in the photo array, he was the only one wearing a jacket.  

State v. Dylan S. / Renee B., 2012 WI App 25 (recommended for publication); for Dylan S.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity;  for Renee B.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Delinquency – Sanctions – Municipal Truancy 

After finding the juveniles in violation of  first-offense truancy under the local municipal code, the trial court set compliance conditions. The court did not,

U.S. v. Antoine Jones, USSC No. 10-1259, 1/23/12, affirming United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010); effectively overruling State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, ¶8

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,

Cory R. Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, 1/18/12, reversing 586 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 2009)

On “the uncommon facts presented here,” the Court finds that cause existed to excuse on federal habeas review Maples’ procedural default, namely his failure to file a timely appeal of his state (Alabama) postconviction petition.

The sole question this Court has taken up for review is whether,

… Perry v. New Hampshire:

The Federal Evidence Blog gauges the impact of last-week’s decision relegating “happenstance” but suggestive ID procedure to jury (rather than due process) determination. Pointing out that Perry highlights 5 “protections” against unreliable IDs, the post keys on appropriate jury instructions (and promises to “review some of these [other] key protections in upcoming posts”; might therefore be worth your while to check that site for updates).

Town of Mukwonago v. John J. Uttke, 2011AP2021, District 2, 1/18/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Uttke: Michael C. Witt; case activity

Uttke’s driver’s license was revoked for refusal to submit to a blood test upon OWI arrest, and he requested a “refusal hearing,” unsuccessfully challenging the existence of probable cause to arrest, § 343.305(9). The court of appeals affirms:

¶9        We first address whether Officer Heckman had probable cause to arrest Uttke.  

State v. Gary A. Senger, 2011AP1950-CR, District 2, 1/18/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Senger: Robert C. Raymond; case activity

Applying the test described in State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 94-95, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999) for extending a traffic stop, the court concludes that the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer FSTs following a stop for driving with a revoked license.

Question Presented: 

Whether a habeas petitioner’s claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim.

Scotusblog page

The Court expressly limited the grant to the procedural issue recited above, even though the 9th granted habeas relief relating to dismissal of a juror mid-deliberations.

State v. Joseph J. Wilcenski, 2013 WI App 21; case activity

Conditions of pre-trial release – alcohol treatment and testing; constitutionality

Waukesha County has adopted a policy that all persons arrested for OWI as a second or subsequent offense who live in one of ten counties be released from custody on the condition that they participate in a “pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program.” Wilcenski argues that this condition violates the constitutional rights to medical privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.