Dennis A. Teague v. Brad A. Schimel, 2017 WI 56, 6/8/17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Dennis Teague has no criminal record, but if you ask DOJ to run a criminal background check on him DOJ will hand over a lengthy rap sheet showing someone else’s criminal history. Why? Because that someone else once used Teague’s name as an alias. The good news is the supreme court holds DOJ is wrong to give out someone else’s history in response to an inquiry about Teague. The bad new is the court can’t agree on the remedy for Teague and others in his situation. [continue reading…]
{ }
Recall that SCOTUS recently ordered the Solicitor General to file an amicus brief on the question of whether Loomis’ petition for writ of certiorari should be granted or denied. Here is the SG’s amicus brief. It argues that “the use of actuarial risk assessments raises novel constitutional questions that may merit this Court’s attention in a future case.” Amicus Br. at 12. However, says the SG, Loomis is not a good vehicle for addressing th0se issues because, among other things: [continue reading…]
{ }
Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2017 WI 57, 6/8/2017, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 370 Wis. 2d 262, 881 N.W.2d 359; case activity
In Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., which involved a woman with Alzheimer’s disease, SCOW held that a person is a “proper subject for treatment” under §51.20(1) if she can be “rehabilitated.” It then set forth a test for determining whether a mentally ill person has “rehabilitative potential.” In this case, J.W.J. argued that Helen E.F.’s framework should be modified because it does not account for the characteristics of mental illnesses other than Alzheimer’s, such as the one he has–paranoid schizophrenia. [continue reading…]
{ }
Taylor County DHHS v. S.A.L., 2016AP2369, 6/7/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.A.L. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. She alleges ineffective assistance of her trial counsel and that the court failed to properly exercise discretion during the dispositional phase. The court of appeals affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Julius Lee Sanders, 2014AP2644, 6/6/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Julius Sanders appeals from his judgment of conviction and the denial, without a hearing, of his postconviction motion. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Bruce C. Brenizer, 2015AP2181, District 3, 6/6/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including select briefs)
The Department of Health Services didn’t have authority to transfer Brenizer to the Department of Corrections because the circuit court’s commitment order unambiguously states that Brenizer is committed to DHS custody for life unless his custody is terminated under § 971.17(5) (1991-92). [continue reading…]
{ }
Terry Michael Honeycutt v. United States, USSC No. 16-142, 2017 WL 2407468 (June 5, 2017), reversing United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
A federal statute—21 U.S.C. § 853—mandates forfeiture of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of” certain drug crimes. This case concerns how § 853 operates when two or more defendants act as part of a conspiracy. Specifically, the issue is whether, under § 853, a defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirator derived from the crime but that the defendant himself did not acquire. The Court holds that such liability is inconsistent with the statute’s text and structure. (Slip op. at 1). [continue reading…]
{ }
