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Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Board, 2021AP373, District 4, 6/9/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This lengthy, unpublished decision doesn’t bear directly on issues arising in day-to-day criminal litigation, but we note it here because its topic—compensation from the state to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…]
{ }
by admin
on June 16, 2022
State v. Valiant M. Green, 2022 WI 41, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2019AP2150-CR, case activity (including briefs)
Does an affidavit supporting a warrant for a blood draw state probable cause where it alleges that the defendant “drove or operated a motor vehicle at driveway of [residential address]” and that the defendant “admitted to drinking alcohol at the house?” Writing for the majority, Justice Hagedorn answers “yes.” Justice A. W. Bradley, the sole dissenter, says “no.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2022
State v. Kimberly L. Howell, 2021AP1865-CR, 6/8/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Howell served as guardian for five children, four of whom were her grandkids. The fifth, 11 year old S.G., has special needs. Howell pled no contest to child neglect and domestic abuse due to her mistreatment of S.G. The circuit court gave her two years of probation during which she could not serve as a guardian for any child, including her grandson, J.R., who has autism. On appeal, Howell argued that this condition of probation was (1) overly broad and unconstitutional and (2) unreasonable and inappropriate. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2022
County v. Buffalo v. Kevin J. Rich, 2020AP1526, 6/7/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejected all three of Rich’s challenges to his OWI 1st conviction. It held that the deputy did have reasonable suspicion to stop Rich’s jeep and to expand the stop to require field sobriety tests. It also held that even though Rich gave six breath samples, he consented to and completed just one breath test. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2022
State v. Q.S., 2022AP420-421, 6/14/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal concerns whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it it held that the termination of Q.S.’s parental rights to his three children was in their best interests. The court of appeals held that the circuit court applied all of §48.426(3)‘s “best interests of the child” factors. Q.S. simply didn’t like how heavily the circuit court weighed unfavorable evidence. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 13, 2022
Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
The crisp majority opinion of this 50-page split decision confirms a narrow but important point of law for ch. 51 cases. When an appellate court reverses a commitment order that has expired, the circuit court lacks competency to conduct remand proceedings in the case. The majority opinion does not address whether, in all cases, an appellate court must reverse a “D.J.W. error” outright or whether it may instead conduct a harmless error analysis. The dissent does not fully grasp this point and thus presents a long, confusing attack on an imaginary majority opinion. [continue reading…]
{ }
