Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

f. Retroactivity

State v. Bruce C. Brenizer, 2015AP2181, District 3, 6/6/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including select briefs) The Department of Health Services didn’t have authority to transfer Brenizer to the Department of Corrections because the circuit court’s commitment order unambiguously states that Brenizer is committed to DHS custody for life unless his custody is terminated… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Questions presented: I. Whether the District Court was in error when it denied relief on Petitioner’s §2255 motion to vacate, which alleged that a prior Florida conviction for “sudden snatching,” did not qualify for ACCA enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §924(e). II. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), announced a new… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question Presented (from cert petition):  In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation. The question presented is whether Padilla applies to… Read More

{ 1 comment }

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12 Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review  The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague v… Read More

{ 0 comments }

7th circuit court of appeals decision Retroactive Application of Case Law, on Collateral Review Narvaez’s federal ACCA enhancement, imposed in 2003, is now unsupportable in light of subsequently-decided Supreme Court authority (Begay v. U.S.; Chambers v. U.S.). He may therefore seek relief against the sentencing enhancement via 28 U.S.C. § 2255: the case law development worked… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501 For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge Issue/Holding: ¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Lo: Robert R. Henak Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Retroactivity on collateral attack of a  “new” rule– one imposing a new obligation on the state and not dictated by prior… Read More

{ 0 comments }