On Point

State v. Carlos G. Comas, 2010AP2687-CR, District 4, 9/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Comas: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although Comas was charged with § 948.025(1)(a), repeated sexual assault of the same child by acts of sexual intercourse, the case was in effect tried under § 948.025(1)(ar) ,which requires acts of sexual intercourse or contact. Comas received a confinement term of 25 years,

court of appeals publication orders, 9/28/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 123 DOC v. Warren Lilly, Jr.

2011 WI App 124 State v. Steven A. Avery

2011 WI App 125 State v. Paschall Lee Sanders

2011 WI App 127 State v. James G. Brereton

2011 WI App 129 State v.

on review of summary order (District 1); for Sutton: Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  case activity

No-Merit Appeal Procedure – Remand for Evidentiary Hearing

Issues: 

1. (Composed by On Point:) Whether § 809.32(1)(g) requires the court of appeals to remand a case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing where, during the course of a no-merit proceeding, an arguably meritorious claim for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel becomes apparent?

Docket

Decision below: Wood v. Milyard, 10th Cir, 11/26/10

Questions Presented (by the Court):

1) Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense?

2) Does the State’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had?

State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault.

¶23      In this case, the trial court properly determined that Echols’ shooting M.F. subsequent to the nonconsensual sexual contact constituted great bodily harm.  

Outagamie County v. Paul S., 2011AP920, District 3, 9/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paul S.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 51.15(5) provides an individual may “not be detained by the law enforcement officer or other person and the facility for more than a total of 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” without a hearing.  

Mr. Badger burrows through the known Internets so you don’t have to …

Mike Sacks, back in the saddle, now sallying forth from HuffPost.

Effective Assistance / GPS litigation. Although recent Ohio precedent establishes that GPS surveillance isn’t a “search” or “seizure” under the 4th A warrant requirement, persuasive foreign authority holds to the contrary, namely United States v.

State v. Daniel R. Doyle, 2010AP2466-CR, District 4, 9/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Doyle: John C. Orth; case activity

Transport of drunk driving suspect 3-4 miles to local police station for purpose of administering field sobriety tests didn’t covert Terry stop into arrest, given that extreme, adverse weather conditions rendered impractical such testing at the scene.

¶11      Terry is codified in Wis.

State v. Anastasia A. Lusty, 2010AP2827-CR, District 2, 9/21/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lusty: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Independent police investigation sufficiently corroborated enough details of tips from anonymous informants to support probable cause for a search warrant.

¶9        We reject Lusty’s argument.  Based on our reading of the record, we are more than satisfied that the facts before the magistrate,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance, State Court Failure to Reach – Standard of Review 

… When “no state court has squarely addressed the merits” of a habeas claim, however, we review the claim under the pre-AEDPA standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2243, under which we “ ‘dispose of the matter as law and justice require.’ ” Id. at 326 (quoting § 2243). This is “a more generous standard,” George v.