by admin
on June 23, 2023
Pugin v. Garland, USSC Nos. 22-23 & 22-331, 2023 WL 4110232 (June 22, 2023), affirming Pugin v. Garland, 19 F.4th 437 (4th Cir. 2021) and reversing Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, 44 F.4th 1181 (9th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary
Noncitizens convicted of an “aggravated felony” may be deported from the United States. The definition of “aggravated felony” includes federal or state offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S). The question in these consolidate cases is whether an offense “relat[es] to obstruction of justice” even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending at the time of the defendant’s acts. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supreme Court holds that an investigation or proceeding need not be pending for the offense to be an aggravated felony.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 23, 2023
Smith v. United States, USSC No. 21-1576, 2023 WL 4002949 (June 15, 2023), affirming United States v. Smith, 22 F. 4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary).
A unanimous Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not bar retrial of a defendant whose conviction is reversed because the prosecution occurred in the wrong venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong location. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 23, 2023
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…]
{ }
by admin
on June 23, 2023
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…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2023
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.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2023
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.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2023
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…]
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2023
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…]
{ }
