This week the Wisconsin Supreme Court hears oral argument in 5 cases concerning public defense. They raise some hot-button issues. Here are the cases, issues, and the times for the arguments, which you can watch on Wisconsineye.org: [continue reading…]
State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 2021 WI 81, 11/18/21, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Section 973.15(5) provides that if an offender convicted in Wisconsin is “made available” to another jurisdiction, he or she gets credit toward his or her Wisconsin sentence “under the terms of § 973.155” for the duration of his or her custody in the other jurisdiction. The supreme court holds this language unambiguously requires that to get credit, the offender’s custody in the other jurisdiction must meet § 973.155’s requirement that the custody be “in connection with” the conduct for which the Wisconsin sentence was imposed. [continue reading…]
State v. Nakyta V.T. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)
To convict someone of possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove both that he was in possession of the substance and that he knew or believed he was in possession of it. State v. Christel, 61 Wis. 2d 143, 159, 211 N.W.2d 801 (1973). See also Wis JI-Criminal 6000. In a published opinion, the court of appeals holds Chentis knew he possessed a trace amount of heroin–undetectable until the State Crime Lab applied a special chemical to paraphernalia–based on fresh track marks on his arm. [continue reading…]
Portage County v. C.K.S., 2021AP1291-FT, 11/24/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court recommitted C.K.S. but apparently neglected to specify the applicable standard(s) of dangerousness. C.K.S. appealed arguing that the court violated D.J.W. and that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient. The court of appeals declined to address the D.J.W. error. Instead, it reviewed the county’s evidence of dangerousness and held it insufficient under the only standards that could apply: the 1st, 3rd, and 4th standards. [continue reading…]
COA asks SCOW to decide whether things that happen simultaneously happen on two “separate occasions”
State v. Corey Rector, 2020AP1213, certification filed 11/24/21; granted 2/16/22; affirmed 5/23/23; District 2; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from the certification):
Whether the plain meaning of “separate occasions” in the sex-offender-registration statute means that the two convictions must have occurred at different times in two separate proceedings so that the qualifying convictions occurred sometime before a defendant is convicted in the current case. Stated otherwise, can the qualifying convictions occur simultaneously, as they did in this case, and as Wittrock and Hopkins held?
State v. Lamondo D. Turrubiates, 2020AP233, 11/23/21, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police arrested Turrubiates and the state charged him with several counts having to do with an alleged assault on his girlfriend. During the arrest police took his phone. The state came to believe the phone might contain evidence of crimes by Turrubiates, and it moved the circuit court to compel him to provide his passcode, despite the fact that it had not yet obtained a warrant to search the phone. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 401 (2014). The court ordered Turrbiates to provide the passcode and he refused; it then found him in contempt of court and ordered him jailed until he reveals the code (though it stayed this sanction pending appeal). [continue reading…]
State v. Sean B. Day, 2021AP1018, 11/24/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including brief)
Day was initially charged with repeated sexual assault of a child for sexual contact with a 14-year-old when he was 17. He ended up pleading to a single count of fourth-degree sexual assault and was put on probation. The circuit court failed to mention expunction at the sentencing hearing, but later–both in writing and at the postconviction motion hearing–it gave the reasons it did not find expunction appropriate. [continue reading…]
The court of appeals has ordered the publication of the following criminal law related opinion:
State v. Randy L. Bolstad, 2021 WI App 81 (defendant entitled to resentencing because sentencing court failed to consider the gravity of the offense)
