Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

S.D. v. A.V., 2018AP1150, District 4, 3/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.D. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of A.V., her ex-husband, after he was convicted and sent to prison for possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirms the unfitness finding but remands for a dispositional hearing. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Racine County HSD v. L.R.H.-J., 2018AP2065, District 2, 3/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.R.H.-J. was convicted of child neglect in causing the death of her first child in 2005. In 2015 she had another child, “Baby J,” who was immediately taken from her and a CHIPS proceeding commenced. In 2017 her rights to Baby J were terminated, after the circuit court granted summary judgment at the grounds phase, citing §48.415(9m). The court of appeals rejects facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the use of that statute against her with respect to Baby J. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Jarmel Dontra Chisem, 2017AP1114-CR, 3/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Chisem, facing charges of first degree reckless homicide and first degree recklessly endangering safety, moved to sever his case from that of his co-defendant, Davis. The court of appeals holds trying the two together was fine. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Timbs v. Indiana, USSC No. 17-1091, February 20, 2019, reversing State v. Timbs, 84 N.E.3d 1179 (Ind. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

“The question presented: Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause an ‘incorporated’ protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?” The answer: Yes. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. A.L. , 2019 WI 20, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 72, case activity

This appeal centers on the proper interpretation of §938.30(5)(d) and §938.13 governing juveniles found not competent during a delinquency proceeding. SCOW holds a circuit court may resume suspended juvenile delinquency proceedings to reexamine the competency of a juvenile who was initially found not competent and not likely to become competent within the statutory period. It also holds that circuit courts retain competency over juvenile delinquency proceedings even after the accompanying JIPS order has expired. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Garza v. Idaho, USSC No. 17-1026, reversing Garza v. State, 405 P.3d 576 (Idaho 2017);  Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

This case involved two plea agreements that included clauses stating that Garza waived his right to appeal. After sentencing, Garza told his lawyer that he wanted to appeal, but his lawyer refused due to the plea agreement. Garza filed claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Siding with Garza, SCOTUS held that counsel performed deficiently and that “prejudiced is presumed” because the failure to file a notice of appeal deprived Garza of an appeal altogether. Opinion at 1.  Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Fortunately, Wisconsin does not have the death penalty. However, On Point readers might find this SCOTUS decision Madison v. Alabama, interesting. The government cannot execute a prisoner who is insane or is so mentally ill that he can’t understand the State’s rationale for executing him. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) and Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael Wade, 2018AP614-CR, 3/5/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wade challenged his convictions for misdemeanor intimidation of a witness and violating a domestic abuse injunction on the grounds that his trial lawyer had a conflict of interest: he had previously represented the victim in other criminal matters. The court of appeals held that Wade waived the conflict. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }