Lora v. United States, USSC No. 22-49, 2023 WL 4034313 (June 16, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Lora, unreported summary order (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Resolving a circuit split, a unanimous Supreme Court engages in a plain-language reading of a statute requiring a judge to impose a consecutive sentence for certain crimes and holds the statute does indeed mean what it says, and no more. [continue reading…]
Dubin v. United States, USSC No. 22-10, 2023 WL 3872518 (June 8, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Dubin, 27 F.4th 1021 (5th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Faced with competing interpretations of a penalty enhancement statute, the Supreme Court adopts the narrower interpretation based on both a careful reading of the language and context of the statute and its “tradition[] of “exercis[ing] restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute.” (Slip op. 17). [continue reading…]
State v. S.S., 2022AP1179 & 2022AP1180, District I, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal with a parent alleging a defective plea colloquy, the court of appeals finds that the State proved the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at a postdisposition hearing.
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.
State v. Garland Dean Barnes, 2023 WI 45, 6/6/2023, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)
Review was granted in on two issues: (1) whether a defendant can “open the door” to testimony that violates his right to confrontation and (2) whether a non-testifying officer’s statement that he saw the defendant commit the crime was admissible because it was not offered to prove that the defendant did in fact commit the crime. See here. However, a unanimous court affirms Barnes’ conviction on harmless error grounds and “assume[s] without deciding that Barnes’ confrontation right was violated.” (Opinion, ¶3). [continue reading…]
Barron County DH & HS v. J.W., 2023AP60, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.W. (“Jill”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove continuing CHIPS grounds for terminating her parental rights and the circuit court’s exercise of discretion in terminating her rights at the disposition hearing. Neither challenge succeeds. [continue reading…]
Barron County DH & HS v. Q.B., 2023AP37, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the trial to terminate the parental rights of Q.B. (“Quan”) on grounds of continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility, a substance abuse counselor referred to Quan having spent “quite a bit of time incarcerated over the years” before the entry of the CHIPS order. (¶¶8-9, 24). The circuit court then declined to give a cautionary instruction. Assuming the evidence was inadmissible and that a cautionary instruction was appropriate, the error was harmless. [continue reading…]
Brown County DH & HS v. T.H., 2022AP2168, 2022AP2169, 2022AP2170, & 2022AP2171, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 2022AP2168, with links to other consolidated cases)
T.H. (“Terese”) argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating her rights to her four children based on continuing denial of physical placement or visitation grounds, § 48.415(4), because it failed to account sufficiently for, and give appropriate weight to, her positive change and the progress she made in meeting court-ordered conditions for reunification. The court of appeals disagrees, finding the circuit court analyzed all the dispositional factors for each child, employed a rational thought process, and weighed the important factors that were supported by the record. [continue reading…]
