On Point

State v. Joseph Gayden, 2010AP2360-CR,District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gayden: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

The difference between Wis JI-Criminal 800 and 805 is that the latter limits the defendant’s intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v. Stephen R. Jones, 2011AP864-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication; for Jones: Brian P. Dimmer; case activity)

Failure to move to strike juror wasn’t deficient performance. Juror’s public support of election of the presiding judge and the district attorney (who was not herself prosecuting this case) didn’t establish a significant relationship with either individual to establish “objective bias.” State v.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Inadequate Argumentation – Sanction 

Counsel’s woefully inadequate argumentation (“a single, underdeveloped legal argument” that, “(w)orse yet … was foreclosed by” prior precedent) not only dooms his client’s effort to resist deportation, notwithstanding palpable equities on her side, but has consequences for counsel himself:

… We are disturbed, however, by Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12

Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review 

The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in Wis COA No. 2008AP398-CR

Habeas – Duty to Preserve Apparent Exculpatory Evidence 

Pretrial destruction of car driven by McCarthy didn’t violate State’s duty to preserve exculpatory evidence, the court rejecting McCarthy’s argument that the destruction unconstitutionally impaired his affirmative defense of brake failure (against charge of causing great bodily harm by operating vehicle while under the influence,

Joseph Muniz v. Smith, 6th Cir. No. 09-2324, 7/29/11

sixth circuit court of appeal decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Sleeping Counsel 

The fact that counsel has slept through a portion of trial does not, alone, amount to denial of counsel so as to require relief under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), rather than inquiry into the prejudice component of  Strickland v.

State v. Jeffrey D. Knickmeier, 2011AP368-CR, District 4, 11/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

The court upholds the sentence – 2, concurrent 6-month jail terms for theft by bailee – of disbarred attorney Knickmeier. The court patiently discusses each of Knickmeier’s challenges to sentencing discretion (some of which, to be blunt, seem frivolous), and concludes:

¶12      In summary,

State v. William M. Hughes, 2011AP647-CR, District 4, 8/25/11

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

Traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion to believe Hughes was operating while intoxicated:

• The stop occurred at night, after a football game, when there is an increased frequency of drunk driving;
• Citizen informant reported observing vehicle weaving outside lane of travel on Interstate,

Rock Co. HSD v. Timothy F., 2011AP1354, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy F.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

The court rejects Timothy F.’s challenge to grant of summary judgment as to grounds for termination (abandonment, § 48.415(1)(a)2.): even if Timothy arguably had “good cause” for not visiting his child (Timothy had absconded from probation in fear of possible revocation),

State v. Steven A. Avery, 2011 WI App 124 (recommended for publication); for Avery: Martha K. Askins, Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Search Warrant – Execution – Reasonableness 

Warrant-based search of Avery’s property was a reasonable continuation of the original search 3 days earlier.

General statement:

¶18      Generally, searches are subject to the “one warrant, one search” rule.