On Point

Posting will be unavoidably light to non-existent this week. For new Wisconsin releases, check here for court of appeals, and here for supreme court. Scotusblog and LII are excellent sources for United States Supreme Court releases.

In advance of a short hiatus (light-to-nonexistent posting next week), we thought you might find the following links of interest …

Mapp v. Ohio is about to turn 50. What, you thought the exclusionary rule always applied to the states? (True in Wisconsin a long time, though, with Hoyer v. State, 180 Wis. 407, 193 N.W. 89 (1923) turning 88 this year.)

Fantasy predictions for SCOTUS.

on petition for review of published decision; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Can a defendant be found guilty under the forfeiture statutes on the grounds of judicial estoppel where the defendant claims he made no statement to a prior court?

Did the undisputed facts on the record establish that if judicial estoppel had not been applied, the defendant neither owned nor controlled the barge that sunk in a navigable waterway in order to be liable under the forfeiture statutes for violations of Wis.

on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Stevens: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

If a suspect in custody initiates communication with the police after previously invoking his Miranda right to consult with an attorney but has yet to again waive his Miranda rights, do the police violate the demands of Miranda by denying an attorney access to the suspect prior to the second waiver of his Miranda rights?

on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Thompson: J.P. La Chapelle; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Whether the failure to inform Thompson of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years of incarceration prior to trial violated Thompson’s constitutional due process rights.

Whether the complaint in this case was defective under Wis. Stat. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence,

Marcus Sykes v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11311, 6/9/11

It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to be in unlawful possession of a firearm. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1). The ordinary maximum sentence for that crime is 10 years of imprisonment. §924(a)(2). If, however, when the unlawful possession occurred, the felon had three previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, the punishment is increased to a minimum term of 15 years.

State v. Anthony M. S., 2010AP1669, District 4, 6/9/11

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

The State sought to prove that the pills Anthony M.S. possessed were a non-narcotic controlled substance (Adderall), § 961.41(3g), through the testimony of the Osseo Police Chief that the website Drugs.com established the pills’ identity. The trial court found Anthony M.S.

Dane Co. DHS v. Jennifer F., 2011AP530, District 4, 6/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer F.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court erred in not taking testimony in support of no-contest pleas to the TPR petition as required by § 48.422(3) (see Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, ¶56, 233 Wis.

State v. Francis A. Malsbury, 2010AP3112-CR, District 2, 6/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Malsbury: Andrew R. Walter; case activity

Prior conviction, in Washington state in 1999 for reckless driving amended from driving under the influence, qualified as a prior OWI and therefore subjected Malsbury to criminal prosecution.

¶7        We hold that Malsbury’s Washington reckless driving conviction counts as a prior conviction for purposes of Wisconsin’s accelerated OWI penalty structure.  

State v. Henry W., 2011AP693, District 1, 6/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry W.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

Testimony of a “bonding expert” as to how the child’s view of her father would make it difficult for him to meet conditions of return, was relevant and admissible in the grounds phase, ¶¶5-7, 10.

Trial court’s refusal to grant adjournment of dispositional phase so that father could secure his own bonding expert,