State v. Heather Van Beek, 2021 WI 51, 2019AP447-CR, on certification from the court of appeals, 6/4/21; case activity (including briefs)
In a splintered opinion, a majority of SCOW holds that an officer does not necessarily “seize” a driver when he takes her license to run a records check. Seizure depends on the totality of the circumstances. In this case, a seizure occured when the officer continued holding a license and questioning the driver until a drug-sniff dog arrived. And the seizure was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Roggensack wrote the majority opinion. The liberals joined some parts of it, and the remaining conservatives joined other parts. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. James Timothy Genous, 2021WI 50, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2019AP435-CR, 6/4/21; case activity (including briefs)
An officer saw Genous sit in a parked car, engine running and headlights on, in a residential neighborhood at 3:36 a.m. A woman emerged from a house, entered the car for 10 to 15 seconds, and returned to the house. Although the officer could not see what happened inside the car, the woman appeared to match the description of a female drug user who was known to live in the house. Plus the officer had heard that this area had a reputation for drug trafficking. In a 4-3 opinion, SCOW held that these facts gave the officer reasonable suspicion to stop Genous for possible drug dealing. [continue reading…]
{ }
Justice R.G. Bradley seems bent on challenging Justice Abrahamson’s status as SCOW’s dissenter in chief. She has begun matching Abrahamson’s rate of dissent (even while conservatives hold the majority on SCOW). But to reach Abrahamson’s total she will have to keep getting re-elected. Read more on SCOWstats.
{ }
On May 26, 2021, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related opinions: [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Keandrae J. Reed, 2020AP1921-CR, District 1, 6/2/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After being convicted of misdemeanor theft, Reed was placed on probation and given the chance for expungement. While he successfully discharged from probation, he isn’t entitled to expungement because he didn’t do enough to pay restitution to have “successfully completed” his sentence as required by § 973.015(1m)(b). [continue reading…]
{ }
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…]
{ }
