Review of a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment by entering the parking garage of an apartment complex without a warrant and without the consent of a resident of the complex? [continue reading…]
On certification by the court of appeals; review granted 11/26/13; circuit court reversed 1/29/16; click here for docket and briefs
Issue (composed by the court of appeals):
How definite or imminent must deportation be in order for it to be “likely,” such that a defendant may withdraw a guilty or no contest plea on the basis that he or she was not informed of the immigration consequences at the plea colloquy? If, in order to withdraw the plea, the defendant must show that deportation proceedings are underway, how does this standard fit in with the time limits for a motion to withdraw the plea? [continue reading…]
State v. Rory A. McKellips, 2015 WI App 31, petition for review granted 11/16/15, reversed, 2016 WI 51; case activity (including briefs)
McKellips is entitled to a new trial on charges he used a computer to facilitate a child sex crime because the jury was erroneously instructed to decide whether McKellips’s cell phone constituted a “computerized communication system,” when it should have been instructed to decide whether McKellips’s uses of the phone constituted communication via a “computerized communication system.”
State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless driving causing great bodily harm and homicide by operating with a detectable amount of a controlled substance, the circuit court erroneously excluded Richey’s medical records from evidence at trial, though the error was harmless. More interesting, perhaps, is the issue arising out of the trial court’s post-verdict meeting with the jury. While it wasn’t plain error for the trial judge to meet with the jury after receiving its verdict, what happened in this case causes the court of appeals to suggest trial judges tread carefully when doing so.
Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). [continue reading…]
Does a conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2), require that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy? [continue reading…]
Dane County v. P.H., 2014AP1469, District 4, 3/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting P.H.’s claim that the experts who testified based their opinions on “dated” information, the court of appeals finds the evidence was sufficient to extend P.H.’s ch. 51 commitment.
Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Cobb, 2015 WI 27, reversing a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity (including briefs)
A tenant living in federally subsidized housing does not need to be given an opportunity to remedy the default when he or she violates the lease by engaging in “drug-related criminal activity” because federal law governing subsidized public housing preempts state law right-to-remedy requirements.
