Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

United States v. Dennis Franklin & Shane Salm, 2018AP1346-CQ, certification granted 8/15/18; case activity

The Seventh Circuit certified the following question of law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Whether the different location subsections of the Wisconsin burglary statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.10(1m)(a)–(f), identify alternative elements of burglary, one of which a jury must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, or whether they identify alternative means of committing burglary, for which a unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary to convict?

The supreme court has accepted the certification and will answer the question next term. For more, see our post on the Seventh Circuit certification.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2017AP1468, petition for review of memorandum opinion granted 8/15/18; case activity

Issues (from court of appeals opinion):

Whether the circuit court has personal jurisdiction to recommit a person under Chapter 51 when the County concedes that it has been unable to serve her with the petition for recommitment?

Whether a circuit court has authority to enter a default judgment against the subject of a Chapter 51 petition for recommitment?

Whether “examining” physician reports recommending involuntary commitment and medication prepared physicians who never actually examined the subject are sufficient to support a Chapter 51 commitment?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Zachary S. Friedlander, 2017AP1337, petition granted 7/10/2018; review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from petition for review):

When, as here, an offender is mistakenly released from prison or jail, is the offender “in custody” under § 973.155(1) and Magnuson such that sentence credit should be granted for this time spent at liberty?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Justin A. Braunschweig, 2017AP1261-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 6/11/18; case activity (including briefs)

Braunschweig was convicted of first-offense OWI causing injury, but that conviction was expunged. So, when he picked up another OWI, was it a first or a second? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. A.L., 2016AP880, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 6/11/18; case activity

Where a juvenile has been found incompetent to stand trial, Wis. Stat. § 938.30(5)(e)1. says he or she can be later reevaluated–but only if he or she was found likely to regain competence. Nevertheless, the court of appeals, relying on a tendentious reading of the legislative history, decided even a juvenile who has been found unlikely to become competent can also be reevaluated. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State ex rel. Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittman, 2018AP203-W, petition for review of a memorandum opinion granted 6/11/18; case activity

Issue (from the petition for review)

Can the court of appeals apply an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice and deny ex parte a sufficiently pled petition for writ of habeas corpus solely for untimeliness, under Wis. Stat. §8095.1? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Portage County v. J.W.K., 2017AP1574, petition for review of a memorandum opinion granted, 6/11/18; case activity

Whether an appeal of the extension of a Chapter 51 commitment based on insufficient evidence becomes moot when the circuit court enters a new extension order?

Whether an examining physician’s testimony is sufficient to support the extension of a commitment where the physician merely recites the statutory language?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Faith N. Reed, 2016AP1609-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 3/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

  1. Whether an apartment dweller consented to police entry of his apartment by leading an officer to the door and going in.

  2. If such consent was given, whether it was revoked by trying to close the door on the officer.

  3. Whether any such consent was free and voluntary where the officer directed the resident to take him to the apartment to speak to someone.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }