On Point

State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06
For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶10      A biased tribunal, like the lack of counsel, constitutes a “structural error.” See id. at 8; Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir. 2005); State v. Carprue,

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, given the trial judge’s statement at sentencing that defendant’s counsel had in fact provided competent representation, established prejudgment of the issue such that recusal was required for the subsequent postconviction assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holding:

¶35      … (A)bsent a pervasive and perverse animus,

State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06
For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      The second component, the objective test, asks whether a reasonable person could question the judge’s impartiality. Franklin, 398 F.3d at 960; Walberg, 109 Wis. 2d at 106-07 (looks to whether partiality can “reasonably be questioned”).

State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06
For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a judge’s instruction to a probation agent, who asked that probation not be extended, “No—I want his probation extended,” evinced judicial bias so as to taint the judge’s subsequent extension order.

Holding: While the judge’s comment did not establish “actual bias” (“given our experience and the reputation of this particular trial judge as a fair and just administrator of the law”),

State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether the administration to an arrestee of a laxative at a hospital was under 4th amendment constraints because of the involvement of the police (including keeping the defendant handcuffed in the hospital room; police administration of the laxative; their palpable goal to recover a controlled substance that the defendant had swallowed).

State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶17      … Private searches are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections because the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action. State v. Rogers, 148 Wis.  2d 243, 246, 435 N.W.2d 275 (Ct. App. 1988) ….¶18      The court of appeals in Rogers stated three requirements that must be met for a search to be a private search:

(1) the police may not initiate,

State ex rel. Luis Santana v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 13
Pro se

Issue/Holding1: A claim that lapsed direct appeal rights should be restored on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must be sought via habeas filed in the court of appeals, pursuant to State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992):

¶1        … Although Santana may seek habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim,

Dennis Thompson, Jr. v. Battaglia, 458 F. 3d 614 (7th Cir. No. 04-3110, 8/14/06)

Issue/Holding: Because (c)ounsel’s work must be assessed as a whole,” an ineffective-assistance claim is a single ground for relief for certificate of appealability purposes, though R. 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, does require that the petitioner specify all grounds for relief along with supporting facts.

State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler

Issue/Holding:

¶28      Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶37      For Campbell to be convicted of interfering with custody of Cody, the State had to prove five elements: (1) Cody was younger than 18 years; (2) Denise had legal custody of Cody under a court order in an action for divorce; (3) Campbell took Cody from Denise and withheld him from Denise without her consent for more than 12 hours past the time allowed by the custody order;