United States v. Billy J. Robinson, Jr., 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Case No. 15-2019, 2016 WL 3947808, 7/22/16
A federal district judge’s sentencing comments “strayed so far from the record” that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals “cannot trace the (legitimate) reasons for Robinson’s sentence” and therefore Robinson is entitled to resentencing. [continue reading…]
Robertson Fowler, III, v. Keith Butts, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 15-1221, 2016 WL 3916012, 7/20/16
The Seventh Circuit holds a federal judge is always disqualified from hearing a collateral attack on a judgment he or she entered or affirmed as a state judge. [continue reading…]
The State of Wisconsin charged 3 young men–Jarrett Adams, Dmitri Henley, and Rovaughn Hill–with 5 counts of second degree sexual assault. Henley and Adams were jointly tried, jointly convicted and sentenced to 20 and 28 years in prison respectively. In a separate trial, Hill presented a new and critical witness to corroborate the defense claimed by all three defendants: the sexual encounter at issue was consensual. Hill’s case ended in a dismissal. Adams and Henley filed postconviction motions alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the same critical witness at their trial. They lost and filed federal habeas petitions. [continue reading…]
State v. Pagenkopf, 2015AP1855-CR, 7/21/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Per §973.20(13)(c)4, a court commissioner held a hearing and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that Pagenkopf pay $19,274.69 in restitution. Pagenkopf sought de novo review via §757.69(8), which provides that a “decision” by a court commissioner shall be reviewed by the circuit court upon the motion of any party. According to the court of appeals, §757.69(8) does not apply to a commissioner’s restitution findings. [continue reading…]
State v. Mark G. McCaskill, 2015AP1487-CR, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McCaskill’s challenges to his arrest and conviction for operating with a prohibited alcohol content don’t persuade the court of appeals. [continue reading…]
State v. Jermaine D. Greer, Sr., 2015AP692, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Greer filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under § 974.06. It is his fourth postconviction motion and—like his third postconviction motion, which he also filed pro se—it argued he is entitled to withdraw his pleas. Greer doesn’t explain why the grounds for plea withdrawal he raises in his fourth motion could not have been raised in his third motion, so the motion is barred under State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185-86, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) (claims that could have been raised in a previous §§ 974.02 or 974.06 motion are barred from being raised in a subsequent § 974.06 motion absent a showing of sufficient reason why the claims were not previously raised).
State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2016 WI App 61, petitions for review and cross-review granted 1/9/2017, affirmed 2017 WI 74, ; case activity (including briefs)
Lazo Villamil was convicted and sentenced for operating after revocation and causing death under § 343.44, one of the provisions of which says that the offense is both a misdemeanor and a felony. He claims that convicting and sentencing him for the felony rather the misdemeanor violated the rule of lenity and his rights to due process and equal protection. The court of appeals disagrees, but grants resentencing due to the circuit court’s failure to consider certain sentencing factors.. [continue reading…]
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP6-CR,7/20/16, Distrct 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here holds that Dalton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing move to suppress the test results from a warrantless blood draw. The record contains no evidence that exigent circumstances existed a la Missouri v. McNeely, and the officer who ordered the draw gave no indication that he ever considered seeking a warrant. [continue reading…]
