by admin
on April 20, 2017
State v. Brandon Arthur Millard, 2016AP1474-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
¶10 This court has previously rejected arguments that Daubert applies to a law enforcement officer’s testimony regarding HGN. See State v. VanMeter, No. 2014AP1852, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2015), and State v. Warren, No. 2012AP1727, unpublished slip op. (WI App Jan. 16, 2013).
****
¶14 Although not binding precedential authority, I conclude that our reasoning in Warren and VanMeter is persuasive. …. I conclude that Millard’s trial counsel was not deficient for failing to raise a Daubert challenge to Officer Welte’s testimony regarding the HGN test because Officer Welte’s testimony was not scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized and, therefore, Daubert does not apply. ….
{ }
by admin
on April 20, 2017
Manrique v. United States, USSC No. 15-7250, 2017 WL 1390728 (April 19, 2017), affirming United States v. Manrique, 618 Fed. App. 579 (11th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Lawyers handling federal criminal appeals, take note: This decision holds that, to challenge a deferred restitution order under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), that is entered in an amended judgment issued after the defendant has filed a notice of appeal, the defendant must file a second notice of appeal from the amended judgment containing the restitution amount. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 20, 2017
State v. C.G.B., 2017 WI App 32; case activity
While the juvenile code gives a judge the authority to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition and refer the case for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) over the district attorney’s objection, State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, 262 Wis. 2d 200, 663 N.W.2d 757, the code does not give the judge the authority to dismiss a petition and order a consent decree over the DA’s objection. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2017
State v. Thomas G. St. Peter, 2016AP683-CR, District 1, 4/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
St. Peter is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge violated his due process rights when it relied on inaccurate information to jump the parties’ joint recommendation for time served and impose more jail time. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1 (sentencing based on inaccurate information violates due process). Not only that, but the judge erroneously exercised his sentencing discretion by failing to link the relevant facts and factors of the case to the standard sentencing objectives. —And you thought an erroneous exercise of sentencing discretion was as mythical a beast as a unicorn! [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2017
State v. Kenneth William Jaworski, 2016AP5, District 1, 4/18/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state filed a ch. 980 commitment petition against Jaworski shortly before the mandatory release (MR) date the Department of Corrections had calculated for him. But DOC later realized it had miscalculated Jaworski’s MR date, which was actually about two months earlier than the date the petition was filed. DOC’s miscalculation (whether negligent or, as Jaworski argues, made in “bad faith”) doesn’t mean the petition was untimely because a ch. 980 petition may be filed anytime before the person is released or discharged from his predicate sexual offense sentences. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2017
Marathon County v. P.X., 2016AP1490, 4/18/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
P.X., who has longstanding diagnoses of autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and intellectual disabilities, was the subject of a Chapter 54 guardianship and a Chapter 55 protective placement, when the County sought to extend his Chapter 51 civil commitment. P.X. argues that he is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51 because he is not “capable of rehabilitation” under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. Instead, the county is using medication to “control” his behavior. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
The Marshall Project explores the problem of “drinking while jurying” here. Yes, it really happens.
{ }
by admin
on April 18, 2017
It’s called Wisconsin Sentencing in the Tough-On-Crime Era: How Judges Retained Power and Mass Incarceration Happened Anyway. Click here for more details about the book and here for a glowing review by the New York Journal of Books. Favorite book jacket quotes include:
Serious students of modern sentencing reforms—as well as everyone eager to understand the roots of, and potential responses to, modern mass incarceration—must have this book on their reading list. O’Hear thoroughly canvasses the dynamic story of Wisconsin’s uniquely important sentencing reform history.
—Douglas Berman, author of the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
Michael O’Hear is among the most balanced and intelligent voices on criminal sentencing in the United States today. with clarity and rigor, he explores through the lens of one state the underlying specifics of mass incarceration–especially how we came to lock up so many for so long. in place of heated rhetoric, you will find here the sobering and powerful facts, including crass political reality, driving our incarceration binge since the late 1970’s.
—Dean A. Strang, lawyer and author of Worse than the Devil
{ }
