by admin
on April 7, 2023
State v. Rasheem D. Davis, 2023 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing an issue of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s order dismissing charges against Davis that was rescinded minutes later didn’t deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 6, 2023
State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2023 WI 22, 03/28/2023, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state agreed to “not recommend a specific term of imprisonment.” At sentencing, the state argued for 27 years imprisonment, consisting of 12 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. Nietzold objected, was denied a postconviction motion hearing in the circuit court, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered resentencing before a different judge. Now, a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the state “cured” its undisputed material and substantial breach because the prosecutor “acknowledged the blunder and modified the State’s recommendation to an undefined prison term-exactly what Nietzold agreed to.” (Opinion, ¶14). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 3, 2023
State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2023 WI 24, 3/31/22, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
This split decision is important for two reasons. First, it authorizes the State to penalize the defendant for exercising his 5th Amendment right to remain silent at trial. Second, it foreshadows how Justice Hagedorn will likely rule in cases involving a broad range of criminal and civil constitutional rights that were established after the framers wrote the United State Constitution. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 3, 2023
Richard Shirley v. Lizzie Tegels, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 18-1713, 3/8/23
Shirley was shackled while he testified at his jury trial for 1st degree reckless homicide. In this federal habeas appeal, he argued that the shackling violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The 7th Circuit denied relief because no SCOTUS case clearly establishes that shackling a defendant while he is testifying violates that right. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 2, 2023
State v. Noah D. Hartwig, 2022AP1802, 3/30/23, District 4; (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
On an early evening in January, an officer noticed an unoccupied car parked in the lot of a public boat launch. She observed a purse in the vehicle and contacted dispatch to see if she could find out anything about the car; she said he was concerned that its erstwhile operator might need some assistance on the cold and icy night. While the officer was waiting in her squad for dispatch to respond, Hartwig arrived in the parking lot driving his Jeep. A female passenger got out of the jeep and into the mysterious car. The officer turned on her emergency lights and approached the vehicles. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 29, 2023
On March 29, 2023, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 29, 2023
State v. Jeffrey D. Kosmosky, 2022AP1754-CR, District 2, 3/29/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The officer who stopped the car Kosmosky was driving for speeding had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop by having Kosmosky get out of the car and do FSTs. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 28, 2023
State v. N.H., 2022AP1945, District 1, 03/14/2023, (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication) case activity
This case presents a relatively straightforward application of how Bangert applies to termination of parental rights pleas. As noted by the decision, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering a more nuanced version of the issue in State v. A.G. In Nico’s (N.H.) case, the court of appeals again holds that a circuit court’s incorrect explanation of the applicable statutory standard at disposition entitles the parent to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert to determine whether the state can prove the parent’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Opinion, ¶1. [continue reading…]
{ }