by admin
on April 19, 2017
State v. Kenneth William Jaworski, 2016AP5, District 1, 4/18/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state filed a ch. 980 commitment petition against Jaworski shortly before the mandatory release (MR) date the Department of Corrections had calculated for him. But DOC later realized it had miscalculated Jaworski’s MR date, which was actually about two months earlier than the date the petition was filed. DOC’s miscalculation (whether negligent or, as Jaworski argues, made in “bad faith”) doesn’t mean the petition was untimely because a ch. 980 petition may be filed anytime before the person is released or discharged from his predicate sexual offense sentences. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2017
Marathon County v. P.X., 2016AP1490, 4/18/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
P.X., who has longstanding diagnoses of autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and intellectual disabilities, was the subject of a Chapter 54 guardianship and a Chapter 55 protective placement, when the County sought to extend his Chapter 51 civil commitment. P.X. argues that he is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51 because he is not “capable of rehabilitation” under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. Instead, the county is using medication to “control” his behavior. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
The Marshall Project explores the problem of “drinking while jurying” here. Yes, it really happens.
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
It’s called Wisconsin Sentencing in the Tough-On-Crime Era: How Judges Retained Power and Mass Incarceration Happened Anyway. Click here for more details about the book and here for a glowing review by the New York Journal of Books. Favorite book jacket quotes include:
Serious students of modern sentencing reforms—as well as everyone eager to understand the roots of, and potential responses to, modern mass incarceration—must have this book on their reading list. O’Hear thoroughly canvasses the dynamic story of Wisconsin’s uniquely important sentencing reform history.
—Douglas Berman, author of the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
Michael O’Hear is among the most balanced and intelligent voices on criminal sentencing in the United States today. with clarity and rigor, he explores through the lens of one state the underlying specifics of mass incarceration–especially how we came to lock up so many for so long. in place of heated rhetoric, you will find here the sobering and powerful facts, including crass political reality, driving our incarceration binge since the late 1970’s.
—Dean A. Strang, lawyer and author of Worse than the Devil
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
No, not juvenile court. “Young adult” court for 18 to 24 year olds. Several states have them. Because the brains of young adults are still developing, some make dumb decisions. If they get saddled with a felony, they are unlikely to find jobs. You know where that leads. “Young adult” courts aim to stop the pernicious cycle. Read more about them on nytimes.com.
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
A few weeks ago, SCOW issued Universal Processing Services v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, a 4-3 decision in which an unusual alignment of justices formed the majority opinion. SCOW watchers wondered: have these 4 justices ever joined forces in a 4-3 decision before? Today’s edition of SCOWstats answers that question and examines 4-3 alignments in detail.
{ }
by admin
on April 12, 2017
State v. D.W., 2016AP1827, 4/11/17, District 1,(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The briefs in this TPR case are confidential, so we only know what the court of appeals’ opinion tells us about the case. D.W. apparently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his trial lawyer’s failure to call witnesses and failure to move to have his son’s (A.W.’s) placement changed to a family member. He also argued that his plea was defective. The court of appeals decision is long on facts, short on law, and essentially rubber stamps the Machner court’s findings without analysis. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 12, 2017
Barron County DHHS v. C.K., 2015AP1378, 2015AP1379 & 2015AP1380, District 3, 4/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.K.’s argues she should get a new TPR trial because the circuit court erred by deciding an element of the grounds allegations without getting her personal waiver of the right to have the jury decide the element and by admitting evidence about drug activity at her home. The court of appeals rejects her claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
