by admin
on June 22, 2022
State v. Ricky Rodriguez, 2021AP2053-Cr, 6/14/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Rodriguez was convicted of two misdemeanors and placed on probation in early 2017. a few months later, he committed two felonies and was sentenced to prison. His probation for the misdemeanors was revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 months in jail consecutive to any other sentence. In his pro se appeal, he argued that his sentence after revocation cannot, as a matter of law, run consecutive to the sentence for his felonies based on Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 60, 230 N.W.2d 126 (1975). The court of appeals says that it can. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2022
State v. Smolarek, 6/16/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Smolarek was involved in a motorcycle accident. After allegedly admitting that he had smoked marijuana much earlier that day, an officer arrested him. A blood test showed that he had been driving under the influence of THC. Smolarek moved to suppress arguing that the officer got his story wrong. He admitted that he had smoked marijuana after the accident. So the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2022
Denezpi v. United States, No. 20-7622, 2022 WL 2111348, June 13, 2022, affirming U.S. v. Denezpi, 979 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2020); Scotusblog page (including briefs and commentary)
Denezpi was prosecuted in the Court of Indian Offenses, a creature of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs that provides a criminal court system for those (relatively few) tribes that haven’t set up their own. After serving a 140-day sentence in that prosecution, he was charged for and convicted of the same conduct in federal court—and ultimately given a 30-year sentence. The Supreme Court rejects his claim that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2022
Then listen to yesterday’s WPR interview with ACLU staff attorney Tim Muth about the continued horrible conditions there. They have severe staffing shortages–a 40% shortage of guards, 50% shortage of teachers, and 67% shortage of social workers. Youth are spending 20 or 21 hours per day in their cells. Wasn’t Lincoln Hills supposed to be closed by now? Yes, but it isn’t. In fact, more youth are being sent there.
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2022
State C. Catti J. Meisenhelder, 2022 WI App 37; case activity (including briefs)
Meisenhelder was busted for shoplifting mouthwash and eyeliner at a Walmart. When police searched her purse they spotted a keychain that had a small, purple vial attached to it. They looked inside, found what looked like meth, and arrested her. She moved to suppress arguing that the search was unlawful under State v. Sutton, 2012 WI App 7, 338 Wis. 2d 338, 8080 N.W.2d 411 (2011). The circuit court denied the motion. In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2022
Last week SCOTUS issued Kemp v. United States construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). That rule allows a party to seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” within one year of the date on which a judgment becomes final. Wisconsin’s analog is §806.07. The issue in Kemp was whether the term “mistake” means mistakes by parties or whether it includes mistakes by judges. In a 7-1 decision SCOTUS held that it includes legal mistakes by judges. Wisconsin courts often look to federal case law on Rule 60(b) when construing §806.07. If you are working on this issue, check out SCOTUSblog’s post on Kemp.
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2022
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Board, 2021AP373, District 4, 6/9/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This lengthy, unpublished decision doesn’t bear directly on issues arising in day-to-day criminal litigation, but we note it here because its topic—compensation from the state to wrongly convicted innocent persons—may be of interest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2022
Shinn v. Ramirez, USSC No. 20-1009, 5/23/22, reversing Ramirez v. Ryan, 937 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2019); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
You can read at Scotusblog quite a bit of commentary on this most recent entry in the present Court’s war on habeas. At oral argument, the lawyer for the state told the court that “innocence isn’t enough” to merit relief for one of the death-row inmates in this case to gain relief. And the Court now agrees. The reason: the likely innocent inmate’s state-provided postconviction counsel didn’t make a good enough record that his trial counsel was ineffective. [continue reading…]
{ }
