Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2020AP32, petition for review of a published decision granted 1/11/2022; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the petition):

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard in determining that admission of DNA evidence in violation of [Thomas’s] right of Confrontation was harmless?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that [Thomas’s] confession to a sexual assault was corroborated by a significant fact? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v.  Larry Jackson, 2020AP2119-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted   1/11/22; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (derived from Jackson’s petition for review):

When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s failure to investigate alibi witnesses, and the State responds that these witnesses have credibility issues, may the circuit court deny the defendant’s claim without a Machner hearing where the alibi witnesses testify?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Rock County v. H.V., 2021AP1760-FT, 1/13/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal concerns a recurring problem in Chapter 51 cases: the lack of objection to damaging hearsay at the final hearing. If the appellate lawyer raises ineffective assistance of counsel in the circuit court, the case will become moot before the issue is finally resolved. Here, the appellate lawyer when straight to the court of appeals, admitted the issue was forfeited, and argued “plain error.”  The court of appeals rejected the argument based on a significant error of constitutional law. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

The 7th Circuit has extended its prior order that canceled in-person arguments and required them to be argued by video or phone.  Here is the new order

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, 1/11/22, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hoyle chose to remain silent at his trial for child sexual assault. During closing arguments, the DA repeatedly argued that the testimony from “Hannah” (the alleged victim) was “uncontroverted” and the jury “heard no evidence disputing her account of the sexual assault.” In a published decision, the court of appeals holds that the DA’s arguments violated Hoyle’s 5th Amendment rights. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr., 2019AP2383, 12/29/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Jackson admitted being involved in a planned robbery that ended in the shooting death of its target. He said–and eyewitness testimony and physical evidence corroborated–that he wasn’t the shooter; instead he said he was the lookout. The state charged him with felony murder, armed robbery and being a felon in possession of a gun. Eventually, he entered a plea to second-degree reckless homicide. He says this plea came about because his trial lawyer, by lack of communication or preparation for trial, left him no choice–and the circuit court refused to allow him to dismiss that lawyer.
[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Tanya M. Liedke, 2020AP33-CR, Distirct 2, 12/29/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court correctly concluded that Liedke wasn’t in custody for sentence credit purposes while she was on GPS monitoring in connection with the case on which she was sentenced. But she’s entitled to some credit for other time when she was in custody, and the circuit court was wrong to deny her request on the grounds that it was DOC’s responsibility to address her request. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Douglas County DHHS v. J.S., 2021AP1123, District 3, 12/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects J.S.’s claim that the County didn’t prove it made a reasonable effort to provide her with the services she was ordered in the CHIPS proceeding to use as a condition for returning her child to her home. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }