by admin
on June 20, 2016
The end of the term is near, and SCOW still has 24 decisions to issue. On Point is tracking 8 of those, and they involve some significant criminal law issues.
State v. Loomis: use of COMPAS at sentencing.
State v. Jackson: application of the inevitable discovery doctrine.
State v. Lynch: should SCOW overrule Shiffra/Greene?
State v. Finley: remedy when defendant pleads based on misinformation of the maximum penalty
Singh v. Kemper: whether retroactive application of the law that repealed early release violates ex post facto clause.
State v. McKellips: use of cell phone to facilitate child sex crime
State v. Salas Gayton: whether a defendant may be sentenced more harshly because he is an “illegal alien.”
City of Eau Claire v. Booth: effect of unknown, out-of-state OWI conviction on jurisdiction over OWI first.
Expect decisions on these issues soon. On Point will keep you “posted.”
{ }
by admin
on June 19, 2016
Review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from the State’s Petition for Review)
Did the court of appeals misapply State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884, when it held that a defendant seeking postconviction DNA testing of “relevant” evidence under § 974.07(2) need not demonstrate that the physical evidence “contains biological material or on which there is biological material” as provided under § 974.07(6)(a)2.?
In reviewing a motion for DNA testing at State expense under § 974.07(7)(a), must a circuit court always assume that a DNA test result will be exculpatory?
In assessing whether it is “reasonably probable” that a defendant would not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA results had been available, should a circuit court apply a newly discovered evidence standard?
Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion under § 974.07(7)(a) when it found that the jury would have convicted Denny even if exculpatory DNA results were present? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 17, 2016
Review of an unpublished summary court of appeals order; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from petition for review):
1. Was the Petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition for discharge from Chapter 980 commitment which included information that the Petitioner had terminated sexual acting out and where a psychologist reported improvement in an important area of functioning?
2. Should this case be remanded to the circuit court for a review that meets the requirements of § 980.09(2), namely, that the circuit court review all previous evaluations of a Chapter 980 Respondent?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2016
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from petition for review):
Does Wis. Stat. §19.356 preclude petitioners from seeking a declaratory judgment that the DOJ’s alias name policy violates Wisconsin’s public records law?
Don’t be misled by the bland statement of the first issue. Teague has asked SCOW to decide whether the DOJ should be allowed to hand out false criminal history records about innocent people in response to open records requests. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2016
On review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from petition for review):
Does Wisconsin Open Records Law require the records custodian of a local law enforcement agency to produce federal immigration detainer hold documents (I-247s) received from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite the specific prohibition contained in 8 C.F.R. §236.6.
In the alternative, does the balancing test set forth under the Wisconsin Open Records Law weigh in favor of the non-production of these same federal immigration detainer hold documents received by a local law enforcement agency from ICE? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2016
On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from certification)
Whether an offender whose parole and extended supervision was revoked after a revocation hearing has an adequate remedy other than a writ of habeas corpus to pursue a claim that the attorney who represented him during the hearing rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance? Specifically, must the offender raise a claim of ineffective assistance of revocation counsel in a motion to the division of hearings and appeals (DHA) in the department of administration?
For a complete discussion and even some commentary, see our post on the certification.
UPDATE (9/15/16): On August 24 the state filed a motion to vacate the certification because it learned DHA isn’t currently in a position to review IAC claims against revocation counsel, which means habeas is indeed the only available remedy (at least for now). The supreme court has granted the motion, and returned the case to the court of appeals to address the merits of Redmond’s claim.
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2016
State v. Karl L. Quigley, 2016 WI App 53; case activity (including briefs)
Karl Quigley confessed to sex offenses during an interrogation by a police detective, and later confessed to additional offenses while being questioned by his probation officer. The court of appeals rejects his Miranda challenge to his initial confession, but agrees that the state failed to show that evidence obtained after the statement to the P.O. was “derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of” that statement, as required by Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). Because Quigley’s plea bargain incorporated charges from both sets of offenses, the court remands for plea withdrawal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2016
Winnebago County v. M.O.S., 2015AP2619, District 2, 6/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s oral findings at the conclusion of M.O.S.’s trial didn’t track the statutory language in either § 51.61(1)(g)4.a. or 4.b., but no matter: On the standard involuntary medication order form the court checked the box corresponding to the standard under subdivision 4.b. (¶¶4, 7), and the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support an order under that standard, despite M.O.S’s partial understanding that his delusions are caused by mental illness. [continue reading…]
{ }
