State v. Jamie R. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92; case activity (including briefs)
Answering a question lingering since the Truth-in-Sentencing revisions that took effect in 2003 (TIS-II), the court of appeals holds that a person serving a bifurcated prison sentence for a misdemeanor enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a), is eligible to petition for a sentence adjustment under § 973.195 after serving 75% of the confinement portion of the sentence. [continue reading…]
State v. Daniel Scott Klinkenberg, 2015AP331-CR, District 4, 11/5/15 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is one of those really fact-specific decisions. The centerpiece of the State’s case against Klinkenberg for retail theft was security camera footage that did not show him concealing merchandise of leaving the store with unpurchased merchandise. Yet the jury convicted, and the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
The Marshall Project offers an interesting analysis of Foster v. Chatman, a case that SCOTUS on Monday. Hopefully, the decision will give defense lawyers betters tools for proving that the prosecution engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection. Click here for the Marshall Project’s analysis. And here is SCOTUSblog’s report on the actual argument.
Those of you with juvenile clients might find this new paper interesting. The full title is: “And if Your Friends Jumped Off a Bridge Would You Do it Too? How Developmental Neuroscience Can Inform Legal Regimes Governing Adolescents.” Here is the abstract: [continue reading…]
So says Salon.com‘s new article on law enforcement’s “rabid defense” of mandatory minimum sentences here.
State v. Mendell Stokes, 2015AP1335-CR, District 2, 11/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Applying State v. Spaeth, 206 Wis. 2d 135, 556 N.W.2d 728 (1996), the court of appeals holds the record provided “competent proof” that Stokes was operating after revocation for a prior OWI offense and, thus, was subject to criminal penalties instead of a civil forfeiture, § 343.44(1)(b) and (2)(ar)2. [continue reading…]
S.R. v. Circuit Court for Winnebago County, 2015 WI App 98; case activity
Because S.R. and C.L.’s “petition for determination of parentage” effectively asked the circuit court for a declaratory judgment about the meaning of Wisconsin’s parentage statutes in light of the cases holding that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the petition should have been served on the Attorney General. Because that didn’t happen, the circuit court lacked the competency to decide the petition. [continue reading…]
State v. Colton M., 2015 WI App 94; case activity
Colton challenges his delinquency adjudication for repeated acts of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16 under § 948.025(1)(e), arguing that applying the statute to him violates due process because it provides insufficient standards for distinguishing him from D., the victim, as both were 15 years old and both engaged in sexual activity. Colton also argues that prosecuting him rather than D. violates equal protection. The court concludes that, under the facts of this case, the statute is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process and there was a rational basis for prosecuting Colton instead of D. [continue reading…]
