On Point

Miller: SCOTUSblog page; consolidated with Jackson: SCOTUSblog page

Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):

Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Sound at least vaguely familiar? It should: our supreme court resolved that very question last Term,

Bobby v. Archie Dixon, USSC No. 10-1540, 11/7/11 (per curiam), reversing Dixon v. Houk, 627 F.3d 553 (6th Cir 2010)

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v.

State v. Jeffrey T. Turner, 2011AP413-CR, District 4, 11/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Turner: Cody Wagner; case activity

The trial court erred in failing to make a sua sponte inquiry into necessity for shackling Turner during his jury trial. Although the court of appeals recently held that a trial court has no such duty to inquire, where the restraints are hidden from view, 

State v. Joseph J. Johnson, 2011AP806-CR, District 4, 11/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnson: Rebecca J. Vahle; case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to move to strike several jurors for cause didn’t require Machner hearing:

¶12      In State v. Traylor, 170 Wis. 2d 393, 399-400, 489 N.W.2d 626 (Ct. App. 1992), this court held that a defendant’s trial counsel was deficient for failing to ask appropriate follow-up questions of jurors who had admitted bias.  

City of Sheboygan v. Kathy L. Reindl-Knaak, 2011AP1090, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reindl-Knaal: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

¶7        The parties do not dispute that Reindl-Knaak’s vehicle had an expired front license plate, that the temporary plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle was later determined to be valid, and that Jaeger had probable cause to continue Reindl-Knaak’s detention based on the odor of alcohol and her “slow” speech.  

Chester B. v. Larry D., 2011AP926, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Entry of default against parent imprisoned out of state violated his right to due process under the circumstances. On receipt of the petition and summons, Larry contacted the petitioner’s attorney and said he wanted representation. The attorney then contacted the SPD.

State v. Frank Plum, 2011AP956-CR, District 3, 11/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Plum: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The officer who stopped Plum for suspected drunk driving testified that Plum refused to answer questions about the type or amount of medication he had consumed: this amounted to an impermissible comment on Plum’s right to silence, notwithstanding that questioning occurred before custodial interrogation (thus,

Matthew Steffes v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-3317, 11/4/11

seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief on review of 2006AP1633-CR

The “concurrent sentence doctrine” – which “allows appellate courts to decline to review a conviction carrying a concurrent sentence when one ‘concurrent’ conviction has been found valid,” Cheeks v. Gaetz, 571 F.3d 680, 684-85 (7th Cir.2009) – doesn’t apply here in view of a separate assessment and the potential to affect parolability:

…

State v. David W. Domke, 2011 WI 95, reversing unpublished decision; for Domke: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although Domke establishes deficient performance in several different respects, he fails to satisfy his burden of showing prejudice.

• Failure to object to hearsay testimony / medical treatment and diagnosis exception inapplicable to counselors and social workers.

In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand

Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:

¶5   Considering the interests of the court of appeals,