Since Justice Abrahamson announced her retirement, SCOWstats (following Posner’s Cardozo: A Study in Reputation), has published a series of posts attempting to measure her influence on the law. Today’s post compares how often she and her colleagues for the past 43 years have been cited in law reviews. Guess who dominates? Click here. She may be the most cited justice in Wisconsin history.
State v. Samantha H. Savage-Filo, 2018AP996-CR, 1/9/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).
Savage-Filo claimed that her trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to investigate electronic discovery and incorrectly assessing the strength of a video allegedly showing her take a purse (filled with jewelry) left in a cart at a store parking lot. S-F argues that the appalling quality of the video shows that the State had little evidence against her. Her trial counsel failed to appreciate this and pushed her to plead. [continue reading…]
State v. Devon Maurice Bowser, 2018AP313, 1/8/19, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Bowser was charged with several offenses in two cases; the two cases involved alleged drug sales on two different dates (one in 2015, one in 2016) to two different CIs. He and the state struck a deal in which he pleaded to some counts in each file with the rest dismissed. But before he could be sentenced, Bowser learned that the CI from the 2015 sale was recanting his claims that Bowser had sold him the drugs. Bowser moved to withdraw all his pleas in both cases. [continue reading…]
State v. Dionte J. Nowels, 2018AP1171-CR, 1/8/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nowels pled guilty to hit and run. He later sought plea withdrawal because during his colloquy the trial court failed to state 2 of the crime elements that the State would be required to prove at trial. The trial court agreed with him on this point, so for the plea withdrawal hearing the burden shifted to the State to prove that Nowles knew and understood those elements when he pled. [continue reading…]
State v. Victor Yancey, Jr., 2018AP802-CR, 1/8/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Stormy applause for Godfrey & Kahn who took this appeal pro bono and then won it! The court of appeals held that Yancey alleged a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty and was entitled to a Machner hearing. It also held that the trial court incorrectly held that to establish prejudice Yancey had to show a “reasonable probability that he would have been able to mount a successful challenge to the State’s evidence at a trial.” [continue reading…]
State v. Shawn T. Wiskerchen, 2019 WI 1, 1/4/19, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1541; case activity (including briefs)
This could have turned out worse. The court of appeals, as we noted in our post on that court’s decision, held that Wiskerchen, convicted of a single burglary of a home, could be made to pay restitution for his alleged prior burglaries of the same home, even though those alleged burglaries were neither charged nor read in, as the statute seems to require. Four justices now conclude, through a creative reading of the record, that the circuit court found Wiskerchen took everything in the single burglary. So, precedentially, this case amounts to little or nothing, and for now at least, the court avoids embracing the court of appeals’ view that results can precede causes. [continue reading…]
Scott Schmidt v. Brian Foster, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1727, 12/20/18, reversing panel decision of 5/29/18
Schmidt, as we discussed in our post on the Seventh Circuit’s (now reversed) habeas grant, was summoned into chambers and questioned by the judge about the testimony he wanted to give in his defense. His lawyer was allowed to be there but was forbidden, outside of a brief limited consultation, to participate. A majority of the en banc court, over sharp dissent, now says that even though that was pretty clearly unconstitutional, Schmidt’s conviction stands because of the AEDPA standard. [continue reading…]
Walworth County D.H.S&S v. A.J.S., 2018AP1562, 1/2/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
On Point doesn’t have access to TPR briefs. But judging from the court of appeals opinion, A.J.S. understood that if he voluntarily agreed to terminate his parental rights to his daughter under §48.41, then his mother would become her adoptive parent. Shortly before the hearing A.J.S. was surprised to learn that this outcome was not guaranteed. And, indeed, it did not come to pass. [continue reading…]
