Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether a defendant may, by voluntary absence or other conduct, waive the statutory right to be present at trial before the trial has begun?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point based on the petition for review and the state’s response to petition for review)

Is the “greater latitude” rule created by case law regarding admission of other acts evidence in child sex cases codified by § 904.04(2)(b)1., which applies to admission of other acts evidence in cases involving an array of crimes in addition to child sex offenses?

Is evidence of a defendant’s criminal acts committed against a person other than the victim admissible under § 904.04(2)(b)1. to show a generalized motive or purpose by a defendant to “control” a person with whom he is in a relationship?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

  1. Whether the safe transport statute, which permits transporting a handgun in a vehicle, forecloses convicting a non-permit-holder under the concealed carry law for having a handgun in his vehicle.
  2. Whether the safe transport statute’s apparent contradiction of the concealed carry statute renders the law unconstitutionally vague.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

  1. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by telling the jury that in order to acquit the defendant they would have to believe the complaining witnesses were lying, that there would have to be evidence of a reason for them to lie, and that the defendant had presented no reason to believe they were lying.
  2. Whether the defendant was deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not object to the jury being given unredacted exhibits containing inadmissible information that one complainant had not had sexual intercourse before the assault alleged in this case.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

  1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on First Amendment free speech grounds a disorderly charge that was based on Breitzman’s use of foul language toward her son inside their home?
  2. Did the court of appeals misapply the standards for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by deferring to the legal conclusions in the circuit court’s postconviction ruling?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Petition for review of State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, granted 1/18/2017; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the State’s petition for review):

Now that criminal defense attorneys are obligated to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of their pleas, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), should the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturn its decision in State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1, and reinstate the harmless error rule to prohibit a defendant who was aware of the potential immigration consequences of his plea from being able to withdraw the plea just because the circuit court failed to give a statutory immigration warning that complied with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c)? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review and petition for cross-review)

 1.  Whether the offense under § 343.44(2)(ar)4. can be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony in order to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language when the legislature’s intent was to create a penalty scheme with increasing penalties for additional elements; or whether, instead, the doctrine of implied repeal should be employed to correct the obvious drafting error that created the ambiguity as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

2.  Whether § 343.44(2)(ar)4., having been interpreted to give discretion to the prosecution to charge an offense as a misdemeanor or a felony, can be constitutionally applied.

3.  Whether the provision in § 343.44(2)(b) stating that the circuit court “shall” consider certain sentencing factors is mandatory or directory.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When a police officer performs a lawful traffic stop, is it reasonable for the officer to make contact with the driver to ask for the driver’s name and identification and to explain the basis for the stop, even if the reasonable suspicion supporting the stop has dispelled by the time the officer does so?

2. When an officer is unable to request a driver’s name and identification and explain the basis for a traffic stop because, as in this case, the driver indicates that the driver’s side window and door are both broken, is the officer then permitted to open the passenger’s side door to achieve that goal?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }