by admin
on September 16, 2015
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (copied from the State’s PFR here):
Crimes may be joined in one trial if they are similar or if they are connected as part of a common plan. Here, the court of appeals reversed Salinas’ conviction because it decided allegations that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s child, and that he intimidated his girlfriend and her child, were not similar acts or connected as part of a common plan. Is the court of appeals’ decision in conflict with the well-established rule that joinder of charges must be broadly construed?
Improper joinder is subject to harmless error review. Here, the evidence of sexual assault and victim intimidation was overhwleming. Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the joinder of the charges was not harmless?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 16, 2015
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (derived from the court of appeals opinion):
Whether, in order to get an evidentiary hearing, a defendant’s postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not understand the “read-in” concept must allege that he would have pled differently if he had understood the “read-in” concept? See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 16, 2015
State v. Lonel L. Johnson, Jr., 2014AP2888-CR, District 3, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
High fives for the defense! The domestic abuse repeater enhancer applied to this defendant increased his maximum penalty for the charged offense. Thus, the court of appeals held (and the State conceded) that the jury had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his underlying conduct qualified as an act of domestic abuse. That’s what Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) requires, but it didn’t happen here. The real win, however, is that for once the State did NOT prevail on its claim of harmless error!! [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 10, 2015
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 17; case activity (for 2014AP1248-CR, which links to the other consolidated cases)
Issues (composed by On Point from the PFR)
Where the State agreed to cap its sentence recommendation on four cases at the “high end” of the recommendation of the presentence investigation (PSI) and the PSI did not recommend whether the sentences in the cases should be served concurrently or consecutively, did the State breach the plea agreement by recommending consecutive sentences?
Was there a sufficient factual basis for a plea to party to the crime of felony theft for “taking and carrying away” property when the defendant had no knowledge of the theft, but only received the stolen property and then moved it to a different location? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 10, 2015
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 26; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point)
Does a defendant have the right to testify at the mental responsibility phase of a bifurcated criminal proceeding?
If so, is an on-the-record colloquy regarding the waiver of the right to testify required? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 10, 2015
State v. T.N., 2014AP2407 & 2014AP2408, District 4, 9/10/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly entered a default judgment against T.N. in his TPR proceeding when, despite the court’s warnings and admonitions, T.N. failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
Mark D. Jensen v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1380, 9/8/15, affirming Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
At Jensen’s trial for the murder of his wife Julie the State introduced Julie’s handwritten letter to the police, written two weeks before her death, in which she wrote she would never take her life and that her husband should be the suspect if anything should happen to her. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals assumed the admission of the letter violated Jensen’s right to confrontation but found the error harmless. The Seventh Circuit holds that the court of appeals’ decision was an unreasonable application of the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), harmless error standard, and that the erroneous admission of the hearsay evidence had a substantial and injurious influence or effect in determining the jury’s verdict, thus satisfying the actual prejudice standard under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
State v. Ryan H. Tentoni, 2015 WI App 77; case activity (including briefs)
Tentoni does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages delivered to another person’s phone and therefore can’t seek to suppress the text messages and other subsequently obtained phone records as fruit of the government’s illegal search of the phone.
[continue reading…]
{ }
