On Point

State v. Beverly H., 2011AP536, District 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beverly H.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The trial court didn’t err in denying the parent’s request for an adjournment of dispositional hearing, following jury verdict finding grounds to terminate. The court of appeals rejects the argument that § 48.31(7)(a) controls the issue.

¶2        This Court disagrees with Beverly H.’s arguments on appeal. 

State v. Rodney A. Larson, 2011 WI App 106 (recommended for publication); for Larson: Chris Gramstrup; case activity

Prosecution for attempt rather than completed crime, §939.32, comes within the general limitation period in § 939.74(1). Therefore, although prosecution for homicide may be commenced at any time, § 939.74(2)(a), Larson’s prosecution for attempted first-degree intentional homicide had to be commenced within 6 years, and must be dismissed as untimely.

on review of unpublished decision; for Felix: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Warrantless Nonconsensual Entry to Effectuate Arrest – Attenuation Doctrine

Issue (composed by On Point):

Whether Wisconsin should adopt the rule of New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) – post-arrest statements following illegal entry supported by probable cause but not exigent circumstances aren’t suppressible if made away from the home.

on certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether a defendant has a non-waivable right to be physically present at a §§ 971.04(1)(g) and 885.60.

If the right to physical presence at the plea proceeding can be waived or forfeited, whether a formal colloquy is nonetheless required before the defendant enters a plea via video conferencing.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Wesley M., No. 2010AP2946, District 2, 6/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶7        A parent is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings, and the applicable standards are those which apply in criminal cases.  See A.S. v. State, 168 Wis.

Harlan Richards v. Graham, 2011 WI App 100(recommended for publication); for Richards: Kendall W. Harrison, Jennifer L. Gregor; case activity

Mootness Doctrine

Challenge to Parole Commission decision to increase deferment period from 10 to 12 months, and to Program Review Committee decision to increase security status, not rendered moot by subsequent parole and program hearings.

¶11      An issue is moot when a party seeks a determination that will have no practical effect on an existing legal controversy. 

Michael D. Turner v. Rogers, USSC No. 10-10, 6/20/11

Appellate Procedure – Mootness Doctrine

Turner’s appeal – he challenges denial of appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding but has fully served the resultant 12-month sentence –  isn’t moot:

The short, conclusive answer to respondents’ mootness claim, however, is that this case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are “capable of repetition” while “evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co.

J.D.B. v. North Carolina, USSC No. 09-11101, 6/16/11, reversing 363 N. C. 664, 686 S. E. 2d 135

This case presents the question whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) . It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave.

Docket

Decision below: State ex rel. Smith v. Cain, 992 So. 2d 928, 2008 La. LEXIS 1772 (La., 2008), writ denied State v. Smith, 2010 La. LEXIS 2202 (La., Sept. 24, 2010)

Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):

In this Louisiana criminal case, the state trial court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, without making any factual findings, or providing any reasons for their rulings,

Docket

Decision below: 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)

Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):

1. WAS THERE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253(C) AND TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S APPEAL?

2. WAS THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OUT OF TIME UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2244(D)(1) DUE TO “THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL BY THE CONCLUSION OF DIRECT REVIEW OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR SEEKING SUCH REVIEW”?