Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Federal Sex Offender Registration Act (SORNA): Construction, Effective Date
Carr v. U.S., USSC No. 08-1301, 6/1/10
… the Act established a federal criminal offense covering, inter alia, any person who (1) “is required to register under [SORNA],” (2) “travels in interstate or foreign commerce,” and (3) “knowingly fails to register or update a registration.” 18 U. S. C. §2250(a). At issue in this case is whether §2250 applies to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred prior to SORNA’s effective date and,
Order on Judicial Disqualification in: State v. Dimitri Henley, 2008AP697, 5/24/10
The underlying question is whether Justice Roggensack “previously handled” Henley’s earlier appeal when she was a court of appeals judge; if so, then by statute she must be disqualified from participating in his now-pending appeal. She declined to disqualify herself in a memorandum decision, 2010 WI 12. Further background, here. And here, especially with respect to State v.
Counsel – Ethically Deficient Performance
OLR v. Joan M. Boyd, 2010 WI 41
Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, consecutive to already-imposed suspensions. The Counts include various failures to act competently and to keep her client reasonably informed in a number of postconviction actions. In one instance, lack of diligence led to loss of the federal habeas statute of limitations, ¶8; and in another, to a lost state appellate deadline, ¶11. Another count, of potential interest,
State v. Shane R. Heindl, No. 2009AP2534-CR, District IV, 5/27/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Heindl: Lisa A. McDougal; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Self-Defense
Trial for battery, which the State theorized occurred when Heindl put Lien in a headlock from behind. Heindl himself suffered scratches and swelling about an eye, but was seriously drunk and had difficulty giving a coherent account to the police. He did not testify,
Sex Offender Registration – Measuring Age Disparity
State v. Matthew C. Parmley, 2010 WI App 79; for Parmley: Christopher M. Eippert; BiC: Resp.; Reply
A sex offender may obtain an exception from the registration requirement 0f § 301.45(1m)2, if “the person had not attained the age of 19 years and was not more than 4 years older or not more than 4 years younger than the child.” At the time of his offense,
OWI – PAC: Timing of Countable Prior Convictions
State v. Brian K. Sowatzke, 2010 WI App 81; for Sowatzke: Andrew R. Walter; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶13 Sowatzke had two countable OWI “convictions, suspensions or revocations” (i.e., he had two OWI convictions) at the time he was arrested on May 9; he had a BAC of 0.048 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9; his legal BAC limit was 0.08 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders 5/10
publication orders, 5/26/10
2008AP003192 2010 WI App 63 Charles F. Reuben, M.D. v. Keith D. Koppen
2008AP003235 2010 WI App 64 Curt Andersen v. Department of Natural Resources
2009AP000094 2010 WI App 65 Claudia D. Stumpner v. Charles C. Cutting, Jr.
2009AP000747 2010 WI App 66 Kalvin Loppnow v. Steven Bielik
2009AP001576 2010 WI App 67 Chad Novell v. Anthony Migliaccio
2009AP001669 2010 WI App 68 Roger H.
State v. Michael J. Lonergan, No. 2009AP3001-CR, District III, 5/25/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lonergan: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.
Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Stop
Stop supported by reasonable suspicion, where vehicle “‘deviated constantly’ from a direct line of travel” and “made several abrupt course corrections,” albeit within its own lane. United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) and United States v.
Effective Assistance – Rape Shield
State v. Michael James Carter, 2010 WI 40
Wisconsin supreme court decision, reversing unpublished summary order; for Carter: John T. Wasielewski; BiC (State); Resp.; Reply
Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to search for admissibility of sexual conduct evidence as an exception to the rape shield law. Therefore, Carter can’t show deficient performance. Separately, this evidence wouldn’t have fallen within an exception anyway,
Jefferson v. Upton, USSC No. 09-8852, 5/24/10
United States Supreme Court per curiam decision
Habeas Review
Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child. The state court rejected that claim after making a finding that the attorneys were advised by an expert that such investigation was unnecessary.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.