Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from petition for review):

Whether the doctrine of hot pursuit always justifies a forcible warrantless entry into the residence of one suspected of minor criminal activity. In the present case, the court of appeals declined to consider Mr. Delap’s argument that the conduct of law enforcement in this case, even if justified as legitimate ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect, was nonetheless unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although Mr. Delap’s argument presented a chain of reasoning and citation to legal authority, the court of appeals characterized the argument as ‘undeveloped’ and did not consider it.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Diamond J. Arberry, 2016AP866-CR, 6/16/17, granting a petition for review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. When a defendant is eligible for expungement under § 973.015 but expungement is not addressed the sentencing hearing, can the defendant raise the issue in a postconviction motion? If so, is a “new factor” motion the appropriate vehicle for bringing such a claim?

2. Did the circuit court err in its exercise of discretion when it denied Arberry expungement based on reasons that could apply in any case?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Daniel H. Bartelt, 2015AP2506-CR, 6/15/17, granting review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

1.  After confessing to an attempted homicide or other serious crimes, would a reasonable person feel free to terminate a police interview and leave an interrogation room, such that the person in not “in custody” for Miranda purposes?

2.  After confessing, did Bartelt make a clear and unequivocal request for counsel when he asked one of the detectives, “Should I or can I speak to a lawyer or anything?” the detective replied, Sure, yes, that is your option.” And Bartelt replied, “Okay, I think I’d prefer that.” Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Shaun M. Sanders, 2015AP2328-CR, granting review of a published court of appeals decision, 6/13/17, case activity (including briefs

Issue (copied from the petition for review):

Can a person be criminally responsible for acts he allegedly committed before the age of original juvenile court jurisdiction? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Shannon Olance Hendricks, 2015AP2429-CR, petition for review granted 5/15/17; review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Do Wisconsin Statute § 971.08(1) and State v. Bangert require that a defendant entering a guilty plea to a crime with alternative modes of commission understand what the state needs to prove to meet its burden of proof on the mode (or modes) of commission the state has alleged?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2016AP619, 5/15/17, granting a petition for review of  an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity 
Issues:
Whether the subject of a §51.20(1)(a) extension of involuntary commitment and medication order has a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel where his lawyer fails to object to, prevent the admission of, or request a curative instruction to address, evidence of his prisoner status during his jury trial?
Whether the subject of a §51.20(1)(a) extension of involuntary commitment and medication order is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice where the jury repeatedly sees and hears evidence of his prisoner status?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. David Hager, 2015AP330, and State v. Howard Carter, 2015AP1311, petitions for review granted 5/15/17, review of published court of appeals decisions (Hager) (Carter); case activity (Hager) (Carter) (including briefs)

We’ve posted on these cases a few times. The first time was when the court of appeals certified them (together) to the supreme court. The supreme court refused that certification, so the court of appeals decided them (separately), as we discussed here and here. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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 }