On Point

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Retroactive Application of Case Law, on Collateral Review

Narvaez’s federal ACCA enhancement, imposed in 2003, is now unsupportable in light of subsequently-decided Supreme Court authority (Begay v. U.S.; Chambers v. U.S.). He may therefore seek relief against the sentencing enhancement via 28 U.S.C. § 2255: the case law development worked a change in “substantive liability”

State v. Jimmie C. Grayer, 2010AP1749-CR, District 1, 6/1/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Grayer: Bridget E. Boyle; case activity

Postconviction denial of ineffective assistance of counsel challenge without Machner hearing upheld.

1. Although counsel performed deficiently by inaccurately telling the jury in his opening statement that Grayer’s in-custody had not been recorded by the police, Grayer wasn’t prejudiced by the deficiency.

State v. Dustin M. Przybylski, 2011AP1-CR, District 2, 6/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Przybylski: Michael S. Holzman; case activity

OWI sentence consecutive to unrelated 15-year sentence upheld, despite joint recommendations of concurrent time, against argument it was fashioned mechanistically rather than as exercise of discretion, State v. Martin, 100 Wis. 2d 326, 302 N.W.2d 58 (Ct. App.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Counsel, of Own Choosing

By arbitrarily refusing to grant Sellers a continuance so he could retain counsel of his own choosing, the district court violated his 6th amendment right to counsel, a structural error requiring reversal without considering possible prejudice.

The facts are a bit extreme – Sellers thought he was retaining one attorney and instead he was saddled with an associate,

Susan Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Association, Inc., 2011 WI 36, on certification; case activity

Standing – Generally

Lead opinion (3-Justice):

¶5   There is no single longstanding or uniform test to determine standing in the case law.  Courts have inconsistently used a variety of terminologies as tests for standing.  Therefore, as a prerequisite to answering the first question, we review the law of standing. 

On Point is very pleased to publish this guest post, by Professor Michael M. O’Hear, on Brown v. Plata. Mr. O’Hear is Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research at Marquette University Law School. He is also editor of the Federal Sentencing Reporter and author of the Life Sentences Blog. You can access his papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=328167. We are deeply appreciative of his finding the time to share his expertise with our readership.

State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant.

¶11      We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166,

State v. Roshawn Smith, 2010AP1192-CR, District 3, 5/26/11, aff’d and rev’d, 2012 WI 91

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WI 91; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support guilty verdict, § 961.41(1m)(h)5., ptac: after agreeing to accept packages (which turned out to contained marijuana),

City of Sun Prairie v. Michael H. Smith, 2010AP2607, District 4, 5/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Smith: Tracey A. Wood; case activity

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(5)(a) imposes the following obligations on law enforcement: “(1) to provide a primary test at no charge to the suspect; (2) to use reasonable diligence in offering and providing a second alternate test of its choice at no charge to the suspect;