State v. Matthew Curtis Sills, 2018AP1052-CR, District 1, 1/14/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State initially Sills with 1st degree child sexual assault, but then amended the charge twice. Ultimately, Sills pled to 2nd degree sexual assault of a child. Before he was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea arguing, among other things, that court had failed to inform him that he faced a maximum fine of $100,000. [continue reading…]
Milwaukee County v. E.C.H., 2019AP772, District 1, 1/14/20, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal asks: Is evidence of homelessness, by itself, sufficient to prove that a person is dangerous to himself or will become dangerous if treatment is withdrawn? And the answer is . . . we don’t know. Hiding behind the mootness doctrine, the court of appeals declined offer guidance to the circuit courts on this important issue of law. [continue reading…]
State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Where to begin? [continue reading…]
State v. Kenneth J. Heinrich, 2018AP2124-CR, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).
Heinrich moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his bail-jumping charges lacked a factual basis and were multiplicitous. His motion and subsequent appeal failed. [continue reading…]
State v. Kody K. Johnson, 2019AP1058-CR, District 4, 1/9/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Johnson accepted a negotiated disposition of 3 contempt charges stemming from his interference with child custody. He then moved to withdraw his plea arguing that the charges had no factual basis and were multiplicitous. [continue reading…]
Portage County v. L.E., 2019AP1841-FT, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Welcome to another chapter in the Wisconsin saga “once committed, always committed.” L.E. has been under commitment for 25 years. At her most recent recommitment hearing, the County offered a doctor’s testimony that “if treatment were withdrawn she’d become a proper subject for commitment.” What facts supported that legal conclusion? Well, not what Portage Cty v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, seems to require. [continue reading…]
Centralized sentencing data would make the administration of justices more fair and transparent. Appellate courts could use the data to ensure that sentences under review are consistent and serve the fundamental purposes of sentencing. Wow! There’s an idea. Read more here.
State v. Andre David Nash, 2018AP1595-CR, 1/7/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
Under Wisconsin law, once a defendant shows that an out-of-court identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, the State has the burden of demonstrating that the identification was still reliable and should be admitted into evidence. Powell v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 51, 66 271 N.W.2d 610 (1978). In this case, the court of appeal held that the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the State, and so reversed. [continue reading…]
