by admin
on June 13, 2018
State v. A.L., 2016AP880, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 6/11/18; case activity
Where a juvenile has been found incompetent to stand trial, Wis. Stat. § 938.30(5)(e)1. says he or she can be later reevaluated–but only if he or she was found likely to regain competence. Nevertheless, the court of appeals, relying on a tendentious reading of the legislative history, decided even a juvenile who has been found unlikely to become competent can also be reevaluated. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 13, 2018
State v. Gitan Mbugua, 2017AP967, District 1, 6/12/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This appeal concerns ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with 2 plea offers. Mbugua claimed that his 1st lawyer provided him incorrect information about option 2 of “plea offer 1” and this caused him to reject “plea offer 1” altogether. He also claims that during a second round of plea bargaining, option 2 of “plea offer 1” remained on the table, and his second lawyer incorrectly advised him to reject it in favor of an entirely new plea offer (we’ll call it “plea offer 2”), which proved to be bad deal. The court of appeals denied both claims for lack of prejudice based upon Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012). A quick Westlaw search suggests that this is the first Wisconsin case to apply Lafler (and it’s unpublished). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 12, 2018
State ex rel. Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittman, 2018AP203-W, petition for review of a memorandum opinion granted 6/11/18; case activity
Issue (from the petition for review)
Can the court of appeals apply an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice and deny ex parte a sufficiently pled petition for writ of habeas corpus solely for untimeliness, under Wis. Stat. § 809.51? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 12, 2018
Portage County v. J.W.K., 2017AP1574, petition for review of a memorandum opinion granted, 6/11/18; affirmed, 5/21/19; case activity
Whether an appeal of the extension of a Chapter 51 commitment based on insufficient evidence becomes moot when the circuit court enters a new extension order?
Whether an examining physician’s testimony is sufficient to support the extension of a commitment where the physician merely recites the statutory language?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 12, 2018
State v. John Patrick Wright, 2017AP2006-CR, 6/12/18, District 1;(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/9/18, reversed 2019 WI 45, ; case activity (including briefs)
Police stopped Wright’s car because a headlight was out, but they asked him whether he had a concealed carry permit and weapons in the car. He admitted he had a firearm and explained that he had recently completed the CCW course. Too bad. He was arrested and charged with 1 count of carrying a concealed weapon. He moved to suppress on the grounds that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to question him about a CCW permit and weapons. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 10, 2018
State v. Steven T. Delap, 2018 WI 64, 6/6/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP2196, case activity (including briefs)
Police had two warrants to arrest Delap. They went to what someone had told them was his address, and someone they thought was Delap ran from them toward the back door of the residence. They chased him, prevented him from closing the door, and arrested him. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Timothy L. Landry, 2017AP1739-CR, 6/6/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Landry pled to 2 counts of 4th-degree sexual assault and was ordered to comply with §973.048(1m)(a), Wisconsin’s sex offender registry. On appeal, he argued that the trial court had not made the necessary findings or explained its decision adequately a la Gallion. He lost. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. James E. Gray, 2017AP452-CR, 6/6/18, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here affirms several trial court evidentiary decisions and holds that the State presented sufficient evidence to support convictions for 5 counts of identity theft. As you might guess, the decision hinges on the harmless error doctrine and facts specific to this case. [continue reading…]
{ }
