United States v. Palomar-Santiago, USSC No. 20-437, May 24, 2021, reversing and remanding 813 Fed. Appx. 282 (9th Cir. 2020); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d), a person removed from the U.S. for a criminal conviction and then charged with illegally reentering the country may collaterally attack the removal order if he or she meets three criteria: (1) the person any exhausted administrative remedies available to challenged the order; (2) the person was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of the order; and (3) the entry of the removal order was fundamentally unfair. Ninth Circuit precedent excused a person from meeting the first two criteria if the person was not convicted of an offense that was later determined not to make the person removable. A unanimous Court holds the Ninth Circuit precedent is contrary to the plain language of the statute, which always requires the person to meet all three criteria.
{ }
Edwards v. Vannoy, USSC No. 19-5807, 141 S.Ct. 1547 (May 17, 2021), affirming 2019 WL 8643258 (5th Cir. May 20, 2019) (denying certificate of appealability); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
This decision alters the long-standing doctrine for deciding whether new rules of criminal procedure established by a decision of the Supreme Court apply retroactively to cases that are final and, therefore, require the defendant to seek collateral review of his or her conviction. The result is that new rules of criminal procedure will no more forever apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Billy Joe Cannon, 2019AP2296-CR, District 1, 5/25/21 (not recommended for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In 2009, the State charged Cannon with conspiracy to deliver cocaine on Nov. 10, 2005. In 2011, a jury acquitted him. Six weeks later, the State filed new charges alleging that Cannon conspired to deliver cocaine on March 4, 2008 through March 24, 2008. This time, a jury found him guilty. On appeal, Cannon argued that the 2009 and 2011 conspiracy charges concerned a single, continuous conspiracy so the second prosecution violated his to be free from double jeopardy. He also argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress wiretap recordings. The court of appeals rejected both claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Alijouwon T. Watkins, 2019AP1996-CR, 5/27/21, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Watkins with several crimes stemming from a domestic violence call: these included escape and battery to one of the police officers who arrested him. While Watkins was in jail, the state charged him with three more crimes related to his alleged attempts to secure perjured testimony about the earlier incident and, the state said, have the arresting officer/alleged victim killed. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Nhia Lee, 2019AP221-CR, petition for review granted 5/19/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
Whether a circuit court is required to appoint counsel at the county’s expense when the SPD is unable to do so within 10 days of the defendant’s initial appearance?
Whether Lee’s rights to due process, to counsel, and to a speedy trial were violated by his protracted pretrial confinement as he waited for the State Public Defender to find counsel for him.
[continue reading…]
{ }
Eau claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014, 5/25/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Last term, SCOW ordered circuit courts deciding recommitment cases to make specific factual findings referencing the standard of dangerousness that supported a person’s recommitment. See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. In J.M.P., the circuit court violated this rule, so the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for additional fact-finding. Unfortunately, this remedy creates significant burdens for people recommitted in violation of D.J.W and due process. [continue reading…]
{ }
It’s been a rough year in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Due to the pandemic and the election, SCOW addressed a record number of original actions. That may partly explain the low number of opinions that will be decided this term. Still to be released in the next 6 weeks or so–23 opinions including 10 opinions in criminal cases and 1 in a TPR case. See the data and list of cases in today’s edition of SCOWstats.
{ }
Caniglia v. Strom, USSC No. 20-157, 2021 WL 1951784 , May 17, 2021; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
In four quick pages, a unanimous Supreme Court rejects the notion that the police have a “caretaking” duty that “creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.” This undoes a lot of law, in Wisconsin and elsewhere; at a minimum we can say that State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592 and State v. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 366 Wis. 2d 443, 875 N.W.2d 567, both of which permitted entries to residences on “community caretaker” grounds, are no longer valid. But the brevity of the decision leaves a lot of questions unanswered; and its unanimity (as the concurrences show) obscures real disagreement about just what the Court has decided. [continue reading…]
{ }
