Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

21. Habeas corpus

SCOW will address confusion created by Starks

State ex rel. Milton Eugene Warren v. Michael Meisner, 2019AP567-W, petition for review granted 10/16/19; case activity Issue (composed by On Point based on the petition for review) Whether under State v. Starks, 2013 WI 69, Warren’s § 974.06 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by the lawyer appointed on direct appeal should be… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Walker v. Pollard, 18C0147, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 9/4/19 Montgomery Walker is a pro se habeas petitioner who alleges that his postconviction/appellate counsel should have raised a claim of juror bias. In an order granting Walker an evidentiary hearing, the U.S. District Court holds that our supreme court was wrong, in State v. Starks, 2013… Read More

{ 3 comments }

Banister v. Davis, USSC No. 18-6943, certiorari granted 6/24/19 Question presented: Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). Decision below: Banister v. Davis, unpublished order dismissing appeal (5th Cir. May 8, 2018) USSC Docket… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State ex rel. Ezequiel Lopez Quintero v. Dittmann, 2019 WI 58, reversing and remanding a court of appeals memorandum opinion, case activity (including briefs) Go Remington Center for the 5-2 win in SCOW! The court of appeals dismissed R.C.’s habeas petition ex parte because it did not allege why Lopez Quintero waited 9 years to… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State ex rel. Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson, 2017AP880, review of an unpublished court of appeals order granted 5/14/19; case activity Issue (from the petition for review): Whether a criminal defendant who was denied a direct appeal and consequently was also deprived of counsel on appeal due to his trial counsel’s failure to file… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Maries D. Addison, 2018AP55-57-CR, 3/26/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The court of appeals agreed that the 17-month delay in bringing Addison to trial was presumptively prejudicial, but based on the unique facts of this case, it held that his speedy trial rights weren’t violated. Addison did a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Scott Schmidt v. Brian Foster, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1727, 12/20/18, reversing panel decision of 5/29/18 Schmidt, as we discussed in our post on the Seventh Circuit’s (now reversed) habeas grant, was summoned into chambers and questioned by the judge about the testimony he wanted to give in his defense. His lawyer was… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Hatem M. Shata v. Denise Symdon, No. 16-CV-574 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2018) Shata’s case was one of two our supreme court decided on the same day–both held counsel not ineffective for failing to give accurate advice on immigration consequences. You can see our prior post for the facts and our analysis of those decisions… Read More

{ 0 comments }