≡ Menu

April in the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Those of you with petitions for review pending, start watching your mail or the WSCCA site around April 16th.  That the date of SCOW’s next petitions conference.

April is the last month of argument for SCOW’s 2013-2014 term.  Here is the argument schedule for cases involving issues of interest to folks interested in indigent defense:

April 3, 2014, 9:45 a.m.       State v. Andres Romero-Georgana, 2012AP55 (Defense counsel: Sara Brelie, Byron Lichtstein)

Whether the defendant’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, which alleged postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a plea withdrawal claim on direct appeal, contained sufficient allegations to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

 Whether postconviction counsel was ineffective under the standard set forth in Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (to show postconviction counsel was deficient, defendant must generally demonstrate counsel ignored an issue that was “clearly stronger” than the issues raised on direct appeal in order).

 April 3, 2014, 10:45 a.m.      Lorenzo D. Kyles v. William Pollard, 2012AP378-W (Defense counsel: Rob Henak)

Whether a client alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s unavailability or failure to respond to a request for an appeal during the 20-day period for filing a notice of intent to pursue postconviction must raise his claim via a § 974.06 motion or a Knight petition?

April 3, 2014, 1:30 p.m.      State v. Cortez Lorenzo Toliver, 2012AP393-CR (Defense counsel: Jeff Davis, Matt Vogel)

Did the adult court lose jurisdiction or competency to proceed against a juvenile by failing to make a specific finding at the preliminary hearing that there was probable cause to believe the juvenile committed an offense that gave the adult court jurisdiction over the juvenile?

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Toliver’s motion for “reverse” waiver from adult to juvenile court under 970.032?

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in imposing near maximum, consecutive sentences?

April 8, 2014, 10:45  a.m.      State v. Jimothy Jenkins, 2012AP46-CR (Defense counsel: Joseph Redding)

In deciding whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, did the postconviction court err by deciding trial counsel’s failure to present the witness was not prejudicial because the witness was not credible?

 April 8, 2014, 1:30 p.m.      State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr., 2011AP1467 (Defense counsel: Bill Schmaal)

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that voluntary consumption of any drug precludes a finding of “mental defect” under § 971.15, where the defendant claimed he suffered from a temporary mental defect based in part on his use of a prescription drug as directed by a doctor?

Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in granting a new trial in the interest of justice?

April 9, 2014, 9:45 a.m.      State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick, 2012AP2513-CR (Defense Counsel: Steve Zaleski)

Wis. Stat. § 904.10 provides that evidence of statements that a person made in court in connection with an offer to the prosecuting attorney to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in any criminal proceedings against the person who made the offer. Judging from the State’s initial brief, the issue seems to be whether § 904.10 extends to plea negotiations initiated by the State or only to offers made by the defendant.


{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment