by admin
on October 25, 2016
State v. Thomas J. Queever, 2016 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)
Thomas Queever tried to break into a house. We know this because the home’s security system captured video of him doing so. The circuit court and the court of appeals ordered him to pay the cost of said security system, concluding that the expense of installing it was the “result of a crime considered at sentencing,” even though it was installed prior to the burglary of which Queever was convicted. Does the court of appeals’ authority extend to reversing the arrow of time? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 24, 2016
Orin Kerr has written a couple of interesting new posts on whether warrants requiring a person to press his finger to a censor on a cell phone or commuter violate the 5th Amendment. Click here and here.
{ }
by admin
on October 21, 2016
Eric T. Alston v. Judy P. Smith, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 16-1308, 2016 WL 6083982, 10/18/2016
Eric Alston was on probation when he came to the attention of Dane County’s “Special Investigation Unit,” a law enforcement initiative targeting “serious, assaultive offenders” that offered him resources aimed at preventing him from reoffending but “came with the admonition that any probation violation would result in the Department of Corrections vigorously seeking full revocation of probation.” (Slip op. at 2). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2016
State v. Marie Williams, 2016 WI App 82; case activity (including briefs)
Like other states, Wisconsin has an opioid addiction epidemic. To encourage people to summon emergency aid for someone who has overdosed, the legislature passed §961.443 which provides that that an “aider” is immune from prosecution for the possession of drug paraphernalia under §961.573 or a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog under §961.41(3g) when trying to help a victim of overdose. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2016
City of Madison v. Jacob Ong, 2015AP1176, 10/20/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
The court rejects all challenges to this pro se appellant’s jury-trial conviction of an ordinance violation for stealing a letter from a mailbox. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2016
State v. Andrew S. Sato, 2015AP1815-CR, 10/18/2016, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police investigating an armed robbery the previous evening learned their suspect was at home in his apartment. One officer initiated a “knock and talk,” banging on the front door of the apartment and yelling for five to ten minutes while another officer positioned himself outside near the apartment’s bedroom window. After that second officer heard loud noises, the first kicked in the door and arrested Sato. The officers then went and got a search warrant for the apartment, which turned up evidence of the crime. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 12, 2016
Review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point)
(1) Could the defendant be convicted of two counts of hit and run with death resulting for a single act of leaving the scene of an accident that caused two deaths?
(2) Is the defendant’s sentence unduly harsh?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 12, 2016
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point)
(1) Was Steinhardt’s right to be free from double jeopardy violated when she was convicted of both party to the crime of First Degree Child Sexual Assault in violation of § 948.02(1)(e) and Failure to Protect a Child from Sexual Assault in violation of § 948.02(3)?
(2) Did Steinhardt forfeit her right to raise the double jeopardy issue by pleading no contest to the charges?
(3) Did Steinhardt’s postconviction motion, which alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her about the double jeopardy issue, sufficiently allege that she was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure?
[continue reading…]
{ }
