On Point

court of appeals publication orders, 4/20/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 52 State v. Winston B. Eison

2011 WI App 53 State v. James M. Drown

Docket

Decision below (9th Cir, unpublished)

Question Presented:

For more than 25 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a legal permanent resident (LPR) who is deportable due to a criminal conviction could seek a discretionary waiver of removal under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(c), provided that the conviction also would have constituted a waivable basis for exclusion.

Albert Price v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-3851, 4/18/11

7th circuit court of appeals decision, on remand after prior appeal, 514 F.3d 729, denying relief on review of unpublished decision of Wis COA

Habeas – IAC – NGI Defense

Trial counsel seemingly mishandled the court-appointed NGI expert, in failing to cure the latter’s apparent misapprehension that he couldn’t rely on eyewitness reports of Price’s behavior absent determination of their credibility by the trial judge.

State v. Christian R. Colon, 2010AP839-CR, District 1, 4/19/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Colon: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Colon’s refusal to testify against codefendant Rivera constituted a substantial and material breach of his plea bargain, such that the State was freed from restrictions on its allocution, ¶¶9-16.

The sheriff placed Colon in a cell with Rivera the night before Colon was to testify, 

State v. Gabriel S., 2010AP2876, District 1, 4/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gabriel S.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

Decision to terminate parental rights upheld as proper exercise of discretion, against argument (as to grounds) that Gabriel S. wasn’t to blame for abuse that caused child to be removed from home under CHIPS order; and (as to disposition) that in its best-interests analysis,

Cullen v. Scott Lynn Pinholster, USSC No. 09-1088, 4/4/11

We first consider the scope of the record for a §2254(d)(1) inquiry. The State argues that review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Pinholster contends that evidence presented to the federal habeas court may also be considered. We agree with the State.

…

We now hold that review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.

State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2011 WI App 61, affirmed 2012 WI 72 (recommended for publication); for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt:  Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt); affirmed, 2012 WI 72

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody

¶1        … 

State v. Dennis J. Thornton, 2009AP3074-CR, District 2, 4/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Thornton: Angela C. Kachelski; case activity

Scienter is not an element of § 940.225(3). State v. Lederer, 99 Wis. 2d 430, 433, 299 N.W.2d 457 (Ct. App. 1980) (statute requires proof of victim’s nonconsent – in contradistinction, presumably, of defendant’s knowledge of lack of consent –

on petition for review of summary order; for Goss: Daniel J. Chapman; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point:

Whether probable cause of intoxication to administer a preliminary breath test under § 343.303 was shown by the smell of alcohol on the driver along with four prior OWI convictions.

The catch: with 4 priors, Goss’s legal blood alcohol content limit would have been .02. Given that greatly reduced threshold,

on petition for review of unpublished order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; for amicus (WACDL): Robert R. Henak; for amicus (Appellate Section, State Bar): Anne B. Kearney; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether counsel is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the court of appeals imposes a monetary or other penalty for an alleged violation of rules of appellate procedure.

Whether the court of appeals’