by admin
on August 4, 2014
Throw away your old copy of Appellate Practice and Procedure for SPD-Appointed Counsel and make room for the Second Edition, available for consulting or downloading here. You also find a permanent hyperlink to it on the sidebar of On Point.
The Second Edition includes significant formatting improvements:
- Jump right to the sections you want to see using our new internal hyperlinks!
- Find forms, samples, checklists, and directories in one convenient place–the appendix at the back of the handbook!
- Download Microsoft Word versions of the appendix forms for use in your cases. Editable forms include: notices of appeal, requests for transcripts, statements on transcripts, authorizations to release information, sample client letters, orders to produce and much, much more!
In addition, the Second Edition corrected numerous errors that surfaced in the First Edition, updated checklists, corrected citations and broken web links, and added new content.
The SPD’s Appellate Division is committed to updating the handbook every year so that the information never gets stale. Thank you to everyone who has suggested changes over the past year, and please keep those suggestions coming!
{ }
by admin
on August 2, 2014
State v. John W. Kaczmarek, 2013AP1745-CR, District 4, 7/31/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to discover before Kaczmarek’s bail jumping trial that the hearing notice mailed to the defendant had been returned, as there was other evidence he’d received notice of the hearing. Nor was counsel ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses, as one may have provided evidence that contradicted Kaczmarek and the other wouldn’t have provided much help to the defense. Finally, counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to object to an arguably erroneous jury instruction.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 2, 2014
Portage County DHHS v. Julie G., 2014AP1057, District 4, 7/31/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The record shows Julie received the warnings required under § 48.356 even though the relevant notice form did not have her signature. In addition, Julie’s substantive due process rights were not violated because the conditions for return of her child imposed by the continuing CHIPS order were not impossible for her to meet despite her incarceration.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 1, 2014
The Wisconsin Supreme Court justices typically meet once per month to discuss and decide petitions for review. There is no way to know which petitions they will be deciding in advance of a conference. However, On Point publishes posts on the petitions granted as quickly as possible after a conference–usually within 24 to 48 hours. Our focus, of course, is on cases concerning indigent defense.
Are you waiting for a decision on a petition for review? The supreme court’s current calendar shows petitions conference scheduled for: September 8th, October 10th, November 14th, December 12th, January 9th, February 13th, March 13th, April 10th, May 15th, June 12th, and July 10th.
{ }
by admin
on July 31, 2014
State v. Donyil Leeiton Anderson, 2014 WI 93, 7/30/14, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity
Without explaining its reasoning, the supreme court declares that while the consumption of prescription medication in accordance with a physician’s advice may give rise to an involuntary intoxication defense under § 939.42, it can never create a mental defect that would sustain an insanity defense under § 971.15. The court also holds that mixing prescription medication with any amount of alcohol precludes a defendant from using either defense.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 31, 2014
State v. Lester C. Gilmore, 2013AP2186-CR, District 2, 7/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to call a witness at a Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), hearing because counsel was concerned the witness was unpredictable and might undermine his argument and because he was instead able to rely on the witness’s written statement to the police, which itself showed the discrepancy between the witness’s statement and the information in the search warrant affidavit.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 31, 2014
State v. Ricky H. Jones, 2013AP1731-CR, District 2, 7/30/14 (unpublished); case actvity
Exclusion of expert testimony about defendant’s lack of propensity toward child sexual assault
In defending Jones against two counts of 1st-degree sexual assault of a child, his lawyer wanted to elicit expert testimony that Jones posed a low risk of committing a sexual offense–a strategy authorized by State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis. 2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998). Unfortunately, trial counsel failed to give the expert report to the State pursuant to its discovery demand, so the trial court excluded it under §971.23(7m)(a) and State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, 248 Wis. 2d 409, 636 N.W.2d 488. Jones was convicted and appealed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 31, 2014
Manitowoc County Human Services Dep’t v. Ralph B., 2014AP140, District 2, 7/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to terminate Ralph B.’s parental rights because Manitowoc County met its burden of proving a failure to assume parental responsibility and because trial counsel had sound strategic reasons for not pursuing various lines of defense during the grounds phase of Ralph’s trial.
[continue reading…]
{ }
