by admin
on September 16, 2019
Walker v. Pollard, 18C0147, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 9/4/19
Montgomery Walker is a pro se habeas petitioner who alleges that his postconviction/appellate counsel should have raised a claim of juror bias. In an order granting Walker an evidentiary hearing, the U.S. District Court holds that our supreme court was wrong, in State v. Starks, 2013 WI 69, 349 Wis. 2d 274, 833 N.W.2d 146, to say an appellate lawyer can’t be ineffective for failing to raise a claim unless that claim is “clearly stronger” that claims the lawyer did raise. The decision explains that SCOW misread Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), as imposing such a rule. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 16, 2019
State v. Amy Joan Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs)
Zahurones was charged with several drug-related counts along with resisting an officer and physical abuse of a child. All the counts arose out of a single encounter with the police. She ultimately pleaded to four counts. On three of those counts she got probation, but on Count 2–the felony child-abuse count–she entered a deferred-judgment agreement with the state. The court put her on a signature bond with respect to that last count, since she wouldn’t otherwise be supervised. Over the next couple of years, Zahurones spent a total of about 9 months in jail on probation holds. Ultimately both the probation and the deferred-judgment agreement were revoked. So, does she get credit for those probation holds against her sentence on Count 2, even though she was technically on a signature bond for that count when she was in jail?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 11, 2019
Waukesha County v. J.K., 2018AP616-NM, 9/3/19 (unpublished order); case activity
The court of appeals can be pretty aggressive about dismissing Chapter 51 appeals for mootness. This time SCOW slapped its hand. J.K.’s lawyer filed a no-merit notice of appeal. Before appointed counsel could file a no-merit report, and before J.K. could respond to any such report, the court of appeals (D2) dismissed the appeal as moot because the commitment order at issue had expired and J.K. was under a new commitment order. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 11, 2019
SCOTUS has some very important criminal law cases on its docket for this term. They involve “crimmigration,” juvenile life without parole, and the 4th Amendment, among many other issues. Read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the 2019-2020 term thus far here.
{ }
by admin
on September 11, 2019
SCOWstats just updated its data on the number of women lawyers arguing to SCOW. Looks like overall the percentage of arguments delivered by women has dipped (or, in the case of private firms, dropped). Only the State Public Defender consistently has more women than men arguing to SCOW. You go, girls! 🙂
{ }
by admin
on September 4, 2019
State v. Ulanda M. Green, 2018AP1350-CR, petition for review granted 9/3/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
-
Whether law enforcement’s “dialogue” with Green amounted to an “interrogation” that should have been preceded by a Miranda warning?
-
Whether Green invoked her right to remain silent when law enforcement asked her if she would like to make a statement and she responded: “No. I don’t know nothing.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 4, 2019
Waukesha County v. J.J.H., 2018AP168, petition for review granted 9/3/19, case activity
Issues:
-
Whether the mootness doctrine should apply to an appeal from a commitment order?
-
Whether the circuit court violated due process when it held a Chapter 51 probable cause hearing and ordered a 30-day commitment/temporary guardianship/protective placement under §51.67 without providing J.J.H., who is deaf, sign language interpreters?
-
Whether the circuit court erred in entering a §51.67 conversion order (a) at the probable cause stage of a Chapter 51 commitment and (b) without making any of the statutorily-required findings for the order?
-
What is the mechanism for appealing a §51.67 order?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 4, 2019
State v. Eric L. Vanremortel, 2018AP417, 9/4/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vanremortel was charged with disorderly conduct for an incident in which he followed the wife of a retired police officer in her car, then repeatedly got out of his own car and shouted at her. The state sought to admit evidence of three prior incidents involving Vanremortel following and/or shouting at police officers, including one that happened a few weeks before the charged conduct and involved the wife’s retired-officer husband. The circuit court admitted the evidence, finding it satisfied the test of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998), and Vanremortel appeals. [continue reading…]
{ }
