≡ Menu

Former ASPD John Breffeilh just brought a real gem to On Point’s attention. It’s an indexed compilation of hundreds (maybe thousands) of successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases from around the nation. The database runs from 1984 when SCOTUS  decided Strickland through the present. It includes Wisconsin cases and covers everything from criminal cases, to sexual predator cases, to involuntary mental commitments.

Skimming this resource can help you (a) avoid missteps and/or (b) find the perfect case to support your client’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Stop what you’re doing and check this out!  Thanks, John!  🙂

{ 0 comments }

State v. Donald G. Verkuylen, 2016AP2364, 5/18/2017, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Verkuylen pled to refusing a blood draw contrary to the motorboat implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 30.684. He raises several arguments about the statutorily required warnings, but the court of appeals finds them all either meritless or forfeited. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard J. Scott, 2017 WI App 40; case activity (including briefs)

Richard Scott seeks to withdraw his pleas to one count of repeated sexual assault of the same child and one count of possessing child pornography. As to the sexual assault count, he was charged under the wrong statute–a prior version. As to the child pornography, he argues that the complaint lacked a factual basis for the plea. The court of appeals rejects both challenges. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; District 2, 5/17/17, certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:  Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.

[continue reading…]

{ 2 comments }

State v. Michael McGee, 2017 WI App 39; case activity (including briefs)

This is an important decision for the few, the happy few, who represent persons committed under ch. 980 in seeking supervised release. The court of appeals holds that the municipalities in which a committed person may be placed have the right to intervene in supervised release proceeding. It also holds that if the circuit court and Department of Health Services fail to adhere strictly to the statutory requirements governing supervised release planning, the supervised release order is invalid. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

City of Pewaukee v. John Jay Kennedy, 2016AP2383, 5/17/17, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Kennedy’s vehicle after running the plates and seeing that its registered owner, Kennedy, had a warrant out for his arrest.  Kennedy was driving, and was eventually arrested for OWI. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shannon Olance Hendricks, 2015AP2429-CR, petition for review granted 5/15/17; review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Do Wisconsin Statute § 971.08(1) and State v. Bangert require that a defendant entering a guilty plea to a crime with alternative modes of commission understand what the state needs to prove to meet its burden of proof on the mode (or modes) of commission the state has alleged?

[continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2016AP619, 5/15/17, granting a petition for review of  an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity 
Issues:
Whether the subject of a §51.20(1)(a) extension of involuntary commitment and medication order has a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel where his lawyer fails to object to, prevent the admission of, or request a curative instruction to address, evidence of his prisoner status during his jury trial?
Whether the subject of a §51.20(1)(a) extension of involuntary commitment and medication order is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice where the jury repeatedly sees and hears evidence of his prisoner status?

[continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }
RSS