Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2016AP2455-CR, petition for bypass granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (based on the parties’ court of appeals briefs)

Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply when there is no misconduct by a law enforcement officer in arresting an individual on an active commitment order that is later found to be void ab initio?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. DeAnthony K. Muldrow, 2017 WI App 47, petition for review granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does lifetime GPS monitoring mandated under § 301.48 constitute “punishment,” thus requiring a judge to advise a defendant that he or she will be subject to the monitoring as a consequence of a guilty or no contest plea?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Michael L. Cox, 2016AP1745-CR, certification granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from certification):

This case raises a single question: whether a sentencing court retains any discretion under Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2015-16), to waive DNA surcharges for crimes committed after January 1, 2014.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, petition for review granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. When assessing the prejudice of defense counsel’s deficient performance in a multiple-count jury trial, may a court divide the prejudice analysis on a count-by-count basis, finding prejudice warranting relief on some counts from the single trial but not others?

2. If a party fails to file a petition for review following an unfavorable Court of Appeals ruling on a particular argument, may the party re-litigate the same question in a second appeal of the same case?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Jamal L. Williams, 2017 WI App 46, cross petitions for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Is the imposition of a single mandatory $250 DNA surcharge an ex post facto violation with respect to a defendant who committed his offense when the surcharge was discretionary and who previously had provided a DNA sample in another case?

2. Is Jamal Williams entitled to resentencing because the circuit court sentenced him based on an improper factor, namely, the fact that Williams refused to stipulate to restitution for which he was not legally responsible?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Anthony R. Pico, 2015AP1799-CR, petition for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

1. Did the Court of Appeals apply the proper standard of review to the trial court’s findings of fact regarding trial counsel’s conduct and strategy?

2. Did trial counsel perform deficiently by failing to investigate Pico’s serious head injury, and did that deficient performance prejudice Pico in pretrial proceedings and at trial?

3. Did the sentencing court impermissibly burden Pico’s privilege against self-incrimination?

4. Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that Pico waived issues not raised by cross-appeal?

5. Is it permissible for a postconviction court to admit and consider expert testimony by another criminal defense attorney regarding the conduct of trial counsel?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Gerald Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. David McAlister, Sr., 2014AP2561, petition granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (copied from petition for review)

1. The central issue at trial was whether McAlister participated in the charged robberies. The state’s evidence on that point consisted entirely of the allegations of two confessed participants seeking to mitigate the consequences of their own misconduct. The jury knew that the state’s witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse McAlister but those witnesses denied under oath having done so. Under these circumstances, is newly discovered evidence from three separate witnesses swearing that the state’s witnesses admitted prior to trial that they intended to falsely accuse McAlister “cumulative” and “merely tend to impeach the credibility of witnesses” such that it could not support a newly discovered evidence claim?

2. Whether the allegations of McAlister’s §974.06 motion were sufficient to require a new trial and therefore an evidentiary hearing on his claim. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }