Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. v. United States, USSC No. 24-557, certiorari granted 4/7/25
SCOTUS added to its 2025-26 docket on April 7, when it granted the petitioner’s cert. petition to address the following:
Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
State v. T.N., 2024AP1280, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
T.N. appeals, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney did not object to statements she contends are inadmissible hearsay. COA assumes without deciding that the statements were hearsay and affirms the circuit court’s orders, concluding there was no prejudice to T.N.
[continue reading…]
State v. J.A.V., 2024AP2081, 4/23/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects two claims relating to the circuit court’s discretionary decision, including an argument that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information regarding the SJO program.
[continue reading…]
State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.
[continue reading…]
March was another slow month, but brought a couple of cases potentially relevant to our practice with respect to a delayed search of a cell phone, the use of suggestive lineups, the constitutionality of laws governing short-barreled rifles, and an argument that the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal restitution orders:
[continue reading…]
Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.
Oconomowoc School District v. Cota., 2025 WI 11, 4/10/25
In a case tangentially related to defense practice, SCOW clarifies that a Wisconsin statute prohibiting employment discrimination based on arrest records applies to non-criminal offenses, such as an allegation of theft prosecuted in municipal court.
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.
[continue reading…]
