On February 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9 (addressing guilty plea waiver rule and holding lawyers need not advice clients about DACA consequences of plea)
State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12 (inaccurate advice about consequences of going to trial invalidated plea)
On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court decided U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, USSC No. 15-1509, 2018 WL 1143822, a bankruptcy case that we note here solely because it addresses a narrow issue that can matter to appellate litigators, civil and criminal: What is the standard of appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact? The answer: Well, it “depends,” though less so in the kind of constitutional questions criminal litigators often face. [continue reading…]
Via this Scotusblog post, we learn the Law Library of Congress has made available digital versions of the U.S. Reports from the Founding Era onward to 2004, just in case you want to see a page image of some of your favorite Supreme Court decisions from those dusty old books lawyers used to have to consult. Terry v. Ohio, perhaps. Or Miranda v. Arizona. Or how about Justice Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (albeit, alas, with one page missing), which overruled Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, decided a mere three years earlier, and reminded us that:
To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
(There’s more—much more—on Barnette and Gobitis here.)
Looking for something of a more recent vintage? The Supreme Court’s recently redesigned web page has just what you’re looking for.
Enjoy!
State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2018 WI App 24, affirmed, 2019 WI 33; case activity (including briefs)
Because civil commitment is neither punishment nor a direct consequence of a guilty or no contest plea, a defendant entering an NGI plea does not have to be advised during the plea colloquy of the maximum term of commitment that could be ordered. [continue reading…]
State v. Curtis L. Walker & State v. Omer Ninham, 2016AP1058 & 2016AP2098, Districts I & III, 3/6/18; case activity (including briefs): Walker; Ninham
Issue:
We certify these appeals to determine whether Wisconsin case law regarding life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers comports with recent pronouncements from the United States Supreme Court, and whether the sentencing courts in these cases adequately considered the mitigating effect of the defendants’ youth in accord with those Supreme Court pronouncements.
State v. Korry L. Ardell, 2017AP381-CR, District 1, 3/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ardell was convicted of stalking in violation of § 940.32(2) for sending emails about N., a woman he had dated, to a former employer of N. (¶¶3-20). The court of appeals rejects his arguments that, under the plain language of the statute: 1) conduct or statements regarding N. but directed at a third party were irrelevant absent proof Ardell either intended such information to be passed on to the alleged victim or intended the third party to harass the alleged victim based on the information; and 2) the jury instructions failed to apprise the jury that the state had to prove that intent before they could convict him. [continue reading…]
State v. Deandre D. Rogers, 2017AP670-CR, District 1, 3/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Evidence that Rogers was identified as a passenger in a vehicle reported stolen was properly admitted in his armed robbery trial because it provided “context” and “background” to one of the robbery charges for which he was on trial. And while the prosecutor made in improper argument in rebuttal closing because it wasn’t based on any evidence whatsoever, the argument wasn’t prejudicial. [continue reading…]
State v. Bruce D. Johnson, 2017AP834-CR, District 3, 3/6/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even if the sentencing court erroneously thought the sentence he was imposing on Johnson would be served in the jail rather than prison, that mistake doesn’t provide grounds for a sentence modification or resentencing. [continue reading…]
