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.
State v. Erik A. Cochran, 2009AP2660-CR, District III, 4/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Cochran: Michael J. Schmidt; BiC; Resp.
Probation Extension
Extension of probation due to failure to discharge restitution obligation upheld, against argument Cochran had made good-faith effort to pay but lacked ability to do so.
State v. Gordon J. Schlapper, 2009AP2660-CR, District III
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Schlapper: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Probable Cause Based Search of Car, After Arrest of Passenger
Police had probable cause to search car, after passenger threw marijuana out window; search-incident limitations imposed by Arizona v. Gant therefore inapplicable.
James Thomas Morton, Jr. v. City of Milwaukee, 2009AP001199, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Forfeiture
Refusal of request to return seized cash upheld, where Morton was convicted of drug offenses: separate forfeiture action was unnecessary (Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), controlling); trial court forfeiture decision is discretionary, and Morton’s failure to provide transcript of trial court reasoning dooms attack.
State v. Derriest Lamar Boose, 2009AP1450, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Postconviction Motion, IAC Claim
Denial of Machner hearing upheld: defendant’s affidavit in support of motion “conclusory,” and claims otherwise contradicted by contemporaneous record.
Appellate Procedure: State’s Waiver; Exculpatory Evidence: State’s Failure to Preserve
State v. Kyle Lee Huggett, 2010 WI App 69; for Huggett: Craig A. Mastantuono; BiC; Resp; Reply
The State forfeited a potential appellate argument by conceding it in the trial court, in response to Huggett’s postconviction motion, ¶14.
Unmentioned by the court: the State is the appellant. Why does that matter? Because the general rule is that the respondent on appeal may raise any argument,
Eric D. Holmes v. Levenhagen, 7th Cir No. 06-2905, 4/2/10
7th circuit decision; on appeal after remand, Eric D. Holmes v. Buss, 506 F.3d 576 (7th Cir 2007)
Competency of Petitioner, While Pursuing Habeas Relief
Given that petitioner is clearly incompetent (“He is deeply confused, obsessed, and delusional”) court orders habeas proceeding suspended until state shows his condition sufficiently improved.
This is a death penalty case, and the decision in the prior appeal indicated that it had “found no noncapital case in which such a claim (petitioner’s incompetency,
State v. Daniel J. Rice, 2009AP1162, District IV, 4/1/2010
court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing
¶6 Regarding the applicability of [State v.] Garner [, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996) to the present case, we find no published cases applying Garner’s modified Nelson test to a pretrial motion to suppress anything other than witness identification evidence.
Failure to Advise Guilty Plea Defendant of Deportation Consequence
Padilla v. Kentucky, USSC No. 08-651, 3/31/10
In sum, we have long recognized that the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Hill , 474 U. S., at 57; see also Richardson , 397 U. S., at 770–771. The severity of deportation—“the equivalent of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v.
Bridget A.N. v. Justin E.H., 2010AP13, District II, 3/31/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Appellate Procedure – Contemporaneous Objection Rule
Waiver of issue on appeal where objections lodged at trial “were not specific enough to put the trial court on notice” of the objection posited on appeal; motion for mistrial was not contemporaneous with occurrence of error and therefore “came to late” to be raised on appeal.
State v. Trelijah A.M., 2009AP3070-FT, District II, 3/31/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Trelijah: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
Delinquency –Lifted Stay, Secure Detention
Trial court’s lifting stay of 4-days’ secure detention “was based on a thorough consideration of the goals of the juvenile justice code, both at the time of disposition and at the time the stay was lifted.”
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.