On Point

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself. [continue reading…]

Click here for SCOWstats update of its 2016 post Women in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which celebrated the steady rise in the number of women arguing cases there.  The good news is that the percentage of arguments by women lawyers in the private sector soared during 2016-2017. The bad news is that the percentage of arguments by women in the public sector plunged. Women gave 75% of public defender arguments in 2015-2016 but only 53% in 2016-2017.  It’s hard to pinpoint the reason for this change given that public defenders are randomly assigned appeals at the circuit level before it is possible to tell whether a case involves issues worthy of SCOW’s attention. Meanwhile, women gave 50% of the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s arguments in 2015-2016 but only 18% in 2016-2017. SCOWstats says that Wisconsin’s new Solicitor General’s office may be responsible for a big part of that plunge. The SG argued 13 cases to SCOW in 2016-2017, but none of the lawyers were women.

State v. Justin A. Braunschweig, 2017AP1261-CR, 2/1/8, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 6/11/18, affirmed, 2018 WI 113;  case activity (including briefs)

Let’s hope expunction has not worn out its welcome at SCOW because this decision could use review and possibly reversal. The State charged Braunschweig (no “er”) with OWI and PAC 2nd and submitted a certified DOT record to prove that he was convicted of an OWI 1st in 2011–a conviction that had been expunged. On appeal he argues that an expunged conviction cannot serve as a predicate for an OWI 2nd. It should be considered a status element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals disagrees, and the upshot is that someone charged with OWI cannot claim the primary benefit conferred by §973.015–i.e. a fresh start. Is that what the Wisconsin legislature intended? [continue reading…]

State v. August D. Genz, 2016AP2475-CR, District 3, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Genz of (1) possession with intent to deliver amphetamine and (2) conspiracy to deliver THC. The court imposed concurrent, stayed sentences with 1 year of probation. Genz appealed the 2nd conviction, but he completed his term of probation while the appeal was pending. The State moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court of appeals said, essentially, no way. The appeal was not moot because a felony conviction has collateral consequences. Furthermore, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy to deliver THC.  Conviction reversed! [continue reading…]

State v. Morris Rash, 2016AP2494-CR, District 1, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Morris Rash was convicted of substantial battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial. When it came time for postconviction proceedings and/or an appeal, it turned out that some photographs used as exhibits at the trial were not in the court record. [continue reading…]

Who would’ve thunk? This is the subject of a hot new paper on the Social Science Research Network.  You can read it here.

This new paper examines data from over 1 million criminal cases in an attempt to answer that question.