LA CROSSE, Wis. (AP) — A former West Salem man serving two life sentences for the deaths of his parents has appealed the conviction, saying his lawyers failed him with faulty jury instruction and the judge excluded evidence that supported his innocence.
Eric Koula previously asked for a new trial, but was denied by Circuit Judge Scott Horne in September. The judge said the conviction resulted primarily for Koula’s own lies designed to conceal his role in the murders.
The appeal, filed Tuesday, accuses Horne of allowing testimony plagued with hearsay evidence that was central to Koula’s conviction. His new attorneys claimed in both the retrial motion and the appeal that the judge improperly disallowed that evidence and that jurors heard prejudicial jury instructions.
Koula’s 2012 trial was the longest in La Crosse County history — 14 days of testimony from 57 witnesses and more than two days of jury deliberations, the La Crosse Tribune reported.
Prosecutors argued that Koula shot his parents, Dennis and Merna Koula, in their Barre home in 2010 so he could claim a substantial inheritance. They argued Eric Koula needed the money because he was deeply in debt, had a failing day-trading career and his parents had threatened to cut him off.
Dennis Koula’s brother and co-worker testified that his brother said he was going to stop supporting his kids financially in the days leading up to his murder. But Eric Koula’s new attorneys claim there’s no evidence to support that he knew his parents planned to stop giving him money.
The appeal also is critical of the defense attorneys, saying they didn’t explain their argument that the couple was the unintended target of a hit man who meant to kill one of their neighbors.
The District 4 Court of Appeals will decide whether Koula should get a new trial after the state Department of Justice responds to his appeal.
Information from: La Crosse Tribune, http://www.lacrossetribune.com
Isabel Rodriguez (left) hands coffee to his husband, Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, at the Davie, Fla., home of Felipe’s sister. The two are longtime immigrant and LGBTQ activists who walked from Miami to Washington in 2010 to call attention to the struggles of youth living in the United States illegally. (AP Photo/Laura Wides-Munoz)
MIAMI (AP) — On a bright New Year’s Day in 2010, a small group of immigrants including a young couple in love laced up donated sneakers for a 1,500-mile march from Miami to Washington.
The goal was simple: To call attention to the plight of youth like themselves living in the United States illegally, and to urge President Barack Obama to issue a temporary reprieve from deportation for millions of these young immigrants.
Dozens of relatives and friends gathered round. Juan Rodriguez silently put a hand on Felipe Sousa Matos’ back, steadying his boyfriend. Matos’ older sisters, one who was also in the country illegally, burst into tears. “Promise you’ll come back,” they said, afraid of what awaited the youths along the back roads of the rural South.
It’s easy to forget how much has changed since that walk dubbed the “Trail of Dreams,” which generated headlines from South America to Asia. Five years ago, the immigration movement was stalled, many viewed the youths’ quest as a pipe dream, and same-sex marriage was legal in just a few states.
Florida is set next week to become the 36th state to recognize same-sex marriage. On the immigration front, Obama issued a deportation reprieve in 2012 for millions of youth, and he followed that up in November by expanding the order to cover millions more teens and adults.
As for Matos, who now goes by Sousa-Rodriguez, he and Rodriguez have become leaders in the immigration movement, are married and hope one day to have a family of their own.
Their story is at once a modern American romance and a sign of just how far and how fast this country has moved on two of the most controversial issues of our time.
On the trail that first day, the 23-year-old Sousa-Rodriguez couldn’t begin to imagine the changes that lay ahead. He was terrified how strangers would react to his budding relationship with Rodriguez, 20, worried they might be attacked. By the time the group reached the small, Haitian church where they would spend the night, afternoon showers had soaked his shoes, and blisters covered his feet.
Rodriguez reminded him why they were walking. They’d tried letter-writing campaigns, organized local protests to raise attention about Obama’s stepped-up deportations. But few in Washington seemed to want to deal with the millions of youths whose parents had brought them to the United States.
In the following weeks, the couple and fellow marchers Gabby Pacheco and Carlos Roa visited historic civil rights landmarks across the South. The nonprofit Florida Immigrant Coalition provided a van to accompany them. At each stop they told their stories. Rodriguez, a Colombian, had been fifth in his graduating high school class in Broward County but initially had to work as a janitor because of his immigration status until his stepmother successfully petitioned for him. Sousa-Rodriguez had been sent to the U.S. by his mother and was now struggling to finish his bachelor’s degree, fearful any chance encounter with police could end with him being deported to the impoverished suburbs of Rio.
Yet even as the youths grew more confident “coming out” about their immigration status, Rodriguez and Sousa-Rodriguez found themselves back in the closet when it came to their sexuality. At a community center in Virginia, immigrant advocates and volunteers helping with logistics asked the two not to hold hands or display any affection during the event to avoid problems with conservative allies. Reluctantly, they agreed.
“It was supposed to be liberating. ‘I’m here to tell you my story,'” Sousa-Rodriguez recalled. “But I couldn’t tell them my story.”
Roa, now an architecture student at the Illinois Institute of Technology, says that moment helped him understand the dual challenges his friends faced.
“On the one end they’re coming out, and on the other end, they’re being shut down,” he said.
The four-month march spawned similar walks around the country and inspired other youths to come out about their immigration status. When the quartet arrived in Alexandria, Va., in late April, parents of other young immigrants lined the streets to welcome them. The four left their sneakers at the White House fence.
Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington in 2013. (AP File Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
And yet little changed as far as policy. Obama maintained that a deportation reprieve was beyond his authority, and opponents of amnesty for youths like Sousa-Rodriguez argued it would only encourage more illegal immigration.
Sousa-Rodriguez and the other marchers now played national roles in the immigration movement, particularly with the youth-led United We Dream; Rodriguez met Obama at the White House.
Back in Miami, they returned to college even as they continued their activism. Sousa-Rodriguez graduated in business but increasingly felt burned out. He now saw immigrant rights as only one part of a web of civil rights issues, including the treatment of the LGBTQ community. To make matters more complicated, he was ready to commit. Rodriguez wasn’t. They still argue about who proposed first.
“Felipe tried to propose a million times.”
“No I didn’t. I just needed to know where things were headed.”
Sousa-Rodriguez wondered if it was time to move on.
Then, one night on a 2011 New Year’s trip to Charleston, S.C., Rodriguez led his boyfriend to the steps of the local office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He got down on one knee.
The two married that spring in Boston — with a raucous party in Miami because same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Florida. They wed a month before Obama announced a temporary halt to deportations for qualified immigrant youth, and before Sousa-Rodriguez started a new job with the LGBTQ civil rights group GetEqual.
By then, Rodriguez had become a legal permanent resident and filed for citizenship. But his timing was off. He filed days before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal law that essentially defined marriage as between a man and a woman, meaning Rodriguez couldn’t get his new husband a green card.
“Welcome to the U.S. You are going to be a citizen — but not equal,” Rodriguez thought when he saw the form listing him as single.
The day of his swearing-in was bittersweet. The couple had moved to Tampa, where Rodriguez was finishing a degree in sociology. Sousa-Rodriguez cheered for his husband, who now goes by Isabel. Afterward, they stared in disbelief at Rodriguez’s citizenship certificate. Flush left, in all caps, was the word “MARRIED.”
In spring 2014, Rodriguez helped win in-state college tuition for Florida students living in the country illegally, while Sousa-Rodriguez returned full-time to national immigrant advocacy work.
“I felt like just because I was protected, I couldn’t stop fighting. My sister still worried every day about deportation,” he said.
In November, she joined millions of parents of U.S.-born children who qualified for Obama’s temporary reprieve.
Two days after Christmas, Sousa-Rodriguez was writing his grocery list at the modest apartment he shares with Rodriguez when he got a text message from the U.S. government. His green card was finally approved.
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — A federal appeals court has sided with juice maker POM Wonderful in a lawsuit over another beverage company’s use of the term “pom.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that denied POM Wonderful’s request for a preliminary injunction against Portland, Ore.-based Pur Beverages.
POM Wonderful argues that Pur Beverages’ use of the term “pom” on a pomegranate energy drink is a violation of POM Wonderful’s trademarks. According to a lower court, POM Wonderful was unlikely to succeed in the case and denied the company’s request to stop Pur Beverages from selling the drink.
The 9th Circuit disagreed and ordered the lower court to reconsider the preliminary injunction.
Pur Beverages President Robert Hubbard said he still doesn’t think POM Wonderful will be granted a preliminary injunction.
POM Wonderful notably landed another key win in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., in which the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the soft drink producer to proceed with its lawsuit against Coca-Cola alleging violations of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, the primary federal law outlawing false advertising.
WASHINGTON — The cost of being uninsured in America is going up significantly next year for millions of people.
It’s the first year all taxpayers have to report to the Internal Revenue Service whether they had health insurance for the previous year, as required under President Barack Obama’s law. Those who were uninsured face fines, unless they qualify for one of about 30 exemptions, most of which involve financial hardships.
Dayna Dayson of Phoenix estimates that she’ll have to pay the tax man $290 when she files her federal return. Dayson, who’s in her early 30s, works in marketing and doesn’t have a lot left over each month after housing, transportation and other fixed costs. She’d like health insurance but she couldn’t afford it in 2014, as required by the law.
“It’s touted as this amazing thing, but right now, for me, it doesn’t fit into my budget,” she said.
Ryan Moon of Des Moines, Iowa, graduated from college in 2013 with a bachelor’s degree in political science and is still hunting for a permanent job with benefits. He expects to pay a fine of $95. A supporter of the health care law, he feels conflicted about its insurance mandate and fines.
“I hate the idea that you have to pay a penalty, but at the same time, it helps other people,” said Moon, who’s in his early 20s. “It really helps society, but society has to be forced to help society.”
Going without health insurance has always involved financial risks. You could have an accident and end up with thousands of dollars in medical bills. Now, you may also get fined. In a decision that allowed Obama’s law to advance, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the coverage requirement and its accompanying fines were a constitutionally valid exercise of Congress’ authority to tax.
In 2015, all taxpayers have to report to the IRS on their health insurance status the previous year. Most will check a box. It’s also when the IRS starts collecting fines from some uninsured people, and deciding if others qualify for exemptions.
What many people don’t realize is that the penalties go up significantly in 2015. Only 3 percent of uninsured people know what the fine for 2015 will be, according to a recent poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
Figuring out your potential exposure if you’re uninsured isn’t simple.
For 2014, the fine is the greater of $95 per person or 1 percent of household income above the threshold for filing taxes. It will jump in 2015 to the greater of 2 percent of income or $325. By 2016, the average fine will be about $1,100, based on government figures.
People can get a sense of the potential hit by going online and using the Tax Policy Center’s Affordable Care Act penalty calculator.
Many taxpayers may be able to get a pass. Based on congressional analysis, tax preparation giant H&R Block says roughly 4 million uninsured people will pay penalties and 26 million will qualify for exemptions from the list of more than 30 waivers.
But it’s unclear whether taxpayers are aware of the exemptions.
Deciding what kind of waiver to seek could be crucial. Some can be claimed directly on a tax return, but others involve mailing paperwork to the Health and Human Services Department. Tax preparation companies say the IRS has told them it’s taking steps to make sure taxpayers’ returns don’t languish in bureaucratic limbo while HHS rules on their waivers.
TurboTax has created a free online tool called “Exemption Check” for people to see if they may qualify for a waiver. Charges apply later if the taxpayer files through TurboTax.
Timing will be critical for uninsured people who want to avoid the rising penalties for 2015.
That’s because Feb. 15 is the last day of open enrollment under the health law. After that, only people with special circumstances can sign up. But just 5 percent of uninsured people know the correct deadline, according to the Kaiser poll.
“We could be looking at a real train wreck after Feb. 15,” said Stan Dorn, a health policy expert at the nonpartisan Urban Institute. “People will file their tax returns and learn they are subject to a much larger penalty for 2015, and they can do absolutely nothing to avoid that.”
The insurance requirement and penalties remain the most unpopular part of the health care law. They were intended to serve a broader purpose by nudging healthy people into the insurance pool, helping to keep premiums more affordable.
Sensitive to political backlash, supporters of the health care law have played down the penalties in their sign-up campaigns. But stressing the positive — such as the availability of financial help and the fact that insurers can no longer turn away people with health problems — may be contributing to the information gap about the penalties.
Dayson, the Phoenix resident, says she’s hoping her employer will offer a health plan she can fit into her budget, allowing her to avoid higher fines for 2015.
In Des Moines, recent college graduate Moon has held a succession of temporary local and state government jobs that don’t provide affordable coverage. The penalties are on his mind.
“When it gets up to $325, I hope I have a career that actually offers me a good health care plan,” he said.
RACINE, Wis. (AP) — A northern Illinois man has pleaded not guilty to charges of killing his wife with a hatchet in Wisconsin.
Thirty-eight-year-old Christian Loga-Negru, of Arlington Heights, Ill., waived his preliminary hearing in Racine County Circuit Court on Tuesday on charges of first-degree intentional homicide, mayhem and kidnapping. Prosecutors say Loga-Negru attacked 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan last month in Mount Pleasant. Authorities say she was hiding from her husband at the home of her boss and his wife.
According to the complaint, Loga-Negru tracked her down, hit her in the head several times with the hatchet outside the home, loaded her in a rental car and drove to a Super 8 motel where police arrested him. Abrudan was airlifted to a suburban Milwaukee hospital where she died.
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, is talking about “unreasonably long sentences” that “may actually make people more likely to return to crime.”
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, wants to expand prison work-release programs in Wisconsin to “break the cycle” of recidivism.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, has called for more specialty courts for alcohol abusers to better address drunken driving.
Attorney General-elect Brad Schimel is similarly focused on encouraging treatment for addictions.
None of these leaders are about to abandon tough-on-crime measures protecting the public from the worst and most violent criminals. But the Republicans who control the statehouse and Congress increasingly talk about being smart on crime and giving those who show initiative a fresh shot at life.
Democrats should help refine and improve the GOP’s ideas, rather than reflexively dismissing this welcome trend.
It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle was touting a tough approach to crime. Yet by the end of his administration in 2010, the state prison population had fallen for two straight years, with more attention to drug and alcohol treatment, anger management, job training, education and community support for offenders leaving prison.
Republican Gov. Scott Walker reversed or slowed some of Doyle’s initiatives. Yet Walker entered office four years ago favoring efforts to keep more people from reaching prison in the first place. That’s a smart approach, though it needs more attention and follow-through.
Nobody in power is talking about letting the worst offenders off easy. In fact, Walker has refused to even consider issuing pardons, while limiting parole. The public expects caution with killers, rapists and the most violent criminals in prison.
But more support for prison diversion programs for lesser crimes makes sense. So do job placement strategies.
Vos recently told the State Journal editorial board that his view changed after a friend at a temporary employment agency convinced him to hire inmates at Vos’ factory through a work-release program. More than 40 nonviolent criminals helped Vos’ manufacturing and packaging company fill a big order from a new customer. He said he paid $10 to $12 per hour, with the inmates receiving minimum wage and the rest of the money going to the agency.
A few of the inmates eventually became permanent employees.
“It made me realize that there is a better hope for redemption than some people in my party believe,” Vos said.
Helping more people with criminal records find jobs will be a priority for Republicans who run the state Assembly in the coming year, the speaker said. He wants more Wisconsin prisons to set up opportunities for eligible inmates to work with private temporary employment agencies.
Wisconsin spends more of its tax dollars on prisons and other correctional operations than it spends on the University of Wisconsin System. So there’s a lot of room for improvement.
A looming state budget deficit will complicate reform efforts. Nonetheless, Republicans who run the statehouse should recognize the huge cost of locking people up.
Most inmates will eventually get out. So let’s help more of them find employment and deal with their addictions and underlying problems.
Let’s keep the momentum going for a smarter approach to crime in Wisconsin.
State officials have decided a former construction foreman’s wrongful imprisonment on rape charges entitles him to compensation for the three years he spent behind bars.
The state Claims Board on Tuesday released details of its Dec. 9 decision to award $25,016.76 to Maxwell Verkuilen, a 37-year-old Appleton resident, for 3 years, 1 month of wrongful imprisonment.
Verkuilen appeared before the board Dec. 9 and said he had worked at a now-dissolved construction company before being found guilty in 2003 of sexual assault. In February 2007, he persuaded an appellate court to overturn his conviction because his attorney had committed legal malpractice.
He requested the board grant him $450,000 for wrongful imprisonment.
Verkuilen, reached by phone Tuesday evening, said he never will be fully compensated for what he has had to endure.
Still, he said, “I appreciate the state Claims Board taking the time to review my case and giving me what they did.
“Also, I’m grateful that the truth was finally brought to light,” he added.
Verkuilen said he is trying to obtain further compensation from Outagamie County and has retained another lawyer to help him in that endeavor.
Michael Kuborn, who represented Verkuilen at the Claims Board hearing on Dec. 9, said it was not surprising his client was not awarded the full $450,000 he had asked for. Kuborn noted that Verkuilen did receive more than the $15,000 that he would have been awarded if he had received the statutory limit of $5,000 for each year of a wrongful imprisonment.
“We have nothing to complain about,” Kuborn said.
The Outagamie County District Attorney’s office recommended denying his claim, noting Verkuilen’s conviction was overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel and he was not exonerated of the crime, according to the board’s decision. If tried again, the DA believes, Verkuilen would once again have been found guilty, according to the decision.
But Verkuilen never had an opportunity to exonerate himself in a criminal courtroom. Before a retrial could start, the Outagamie County judge who would have presided over the case granted a motion requiring the alleged victim open her mental health and medical records for inspection by the court. The woman refused, and the court dismissed the charges against Verkuilen.
Verkuilen argued that canceling the retrial deprived him of any opportunity to prove his innocence. He also said his lawyer at the original criminal trial, Joseph Norby of Appleton, failed to present much of the evidence that might have exculpated Verkuilen.
The board, noting that the circumstances of the case were unique in that a post-conviction civil jury found Verkuilen not guilty of the charge, opted to award him $15,416.76 for his time imprisoned and $9,600 for his legal fees. State law caps the compensation for wrongful convictions at $25,000.
Verkuilen said he was a construction manager at the now-dissolved Steve Skotzke Construction Inc., Greenville, when he was arrested in 2002.
According to a case summary prepared by Claims Board staff members, Verkuilen went out with friends on June 10, 2002, to an Appleton bar, where he met the alleged victim. Later that night, the pair went to his residence, a room he rented in the house of his sister and her husband, and had sexual intercourse.
Verkuilen was arrested the next day and charged with two counts of sexual assault. At the trial, prosecutors relied heavily on testimony provided by a nurse who said the alleged victim showed physical signs of being forced into having nonconsensual intercourse.
Verkuilen’s conviction was overturned in part because he proved his lawyer had not called witnesses who could have possibly rebutted the testimony. Verkuilen later sued the lawyer in civil court and the jury found Verkuilen was not guilty of sexual assault and that Norby had committed malpractice.
Norby could be immediately reached for comment.
The jurors awarded Verkuilen $700,000 but reduced the amount to $456,191.50 after finding that he had been negligent in not trying to force his lawyer to present a better defense. Norby, who did not have malpractice insurance, declared bankruptcy shortly after the ruling, and Verkuilen had not collected any money as of Dec. 9.
Verkuilen claimed he was owed compensation for his hardships, which did not end once he left prison. He said he briefly tried to return to the construction industry but decided he was not getting paid enough for the long hours he was putting in.
He is now a retirement planner in the Appleton area. He also, according to Wisconsin court records, has had a long series of encounters with the law, many of them related to traffic violations.
This year, he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect on charges of recklessly endangering safety, operating a vehicle with a controlled substance and trying to flee from officers in Fond du Lac County.
MILWAUKEE (AP) — Wisconsin court officials who allow people to make copies of records with cellphone cameras and scanners shouldn’t charge them, according to a legal opinion Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen released Tuesday.
The opinion walks back Van Hollen’s previous stance that court officials are entitled to charge the $1.25 per page fee for copies made with personal technology. It comes as Van Hollen prepares to turn over his office to fellow Republican Brad Schimel on Monday after choosing not to seek a third term.
Van Hollen wrote in a 2012 letter that he believed the Walworth County clerk of court was justified in charging for copies of 20 pages of documents a newspaper reporter made with a camera phone. State Courts Director John Voelker asked Van Hollen for a formal opinion on fees in such cases later that year, noting that the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council also wanted him to review his position.
Van Hollen wrote that state statutes don’t authorize collection of fees when a records requester makes copies without help from court officials. But he went on to say that court record custodians can choose the method of copying and don’t have to let requesters make their own copies. If the custodians prohibit it, they can assess fees.
“Accordingly, the custodian of court records may choose whether to allow someone to make his or her own copies with personal technology,” Van Hollen wrote. “If the decision is to allow a person to perform that copying unassisted, then the fees … do not apply.”
WFOIC President Bill Lueders said in an email to The Associated Press that he was pleased that Van Hollen decided clerks should let record requesters make their own copies for free. But allowing clerks to block people using their own equipment and forcing them to pay up is problematic, he said.
“I would hope that clerks of court would allow citizens to make copies using hand-held cameras, just as they may now look at court case files and copy information by hand,” he said.
Copying fees are a major source of income for clerks of court. According to Voelker’s request, they collected more than $815,000 in fees in 2011.
La Crosse County Clerk of Courts Pam Radtke, president of the Wisconsin Clerks of Circuit Court Association, didn’t immediately return a voicemail message early Tuesday afternoon.
A reasonable insured would understand that decomposing septage is a “contaminant” and therefore, a “pollutant” as defined in a pollution exclusion clause when it has decomposed and seeps into a water supply.
“Furthermore, that septage fits the ordinary meaning of waste, which the policies expressly list as a pollutant, supports our conclusion that septage is a pollutant when it seeps into a water supply. Septage is primarily composed of human urine and feces. The ordinary meanings of feces and urine are, respectively, ‘“[w]aste matter eliminated from the bowels; excrement,”’ and ‘“[t]he waste product secreted by the kidneys.”’ Hirschhorn, 338 Wis. 2d 761, ¶34 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary 1965). The ordinary meaning of waste includes, among other things, ‘“[t]he undigested residue of food eliminated from the body; excrement.”’ Id. (quoting American Heritage Dictionary 2016). In Hirschhorn, these definitions of waste, urine, and feces supported our conclusion that bat guano——which consists of bat urine and feces——was a pollutant when it infiltrated a home. Id., ¶¶34-36. Likewise, in the present case, these definitions support our conclusion that decomposing septage is a pollutant when it seeps into a water supply.”
A pollution exclusion clause in a CGL policy unambiguously excludes coverage for well contamination caused by the seepage of cow manure.
“The Falks and injured parties further argue that it was the nitrates, not the manure, that caused the harm. However, this argument interprets the pollution exclusion so narrowly that our adoption of it would render the exclusion almost meaningless. Nitrates of this quantity found in a well could not occur but for excess nitrates that had formed as the result of manure application. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Basic Information, supra note 16. Under a causation analysis, the nitrates could not have seeped into the well, had the manure not been applied. No one would look at well water contaminated by nitrates and conclude that the well is anything but polluted. This argument further overlooks the fact that harmful bacteria were also found in the injured parties’ wells. When manure infiltrates a well, it renders the well impure, unclean, and contaminates the water.”
Reversed and Remanded.
2013AP691 & 2013AP776 Wilson Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falk
Face-to-face contact is not required in order for a defendant to commit bail jumping by violating a no contact order.
“In sum, the jury instruction requiring the State to prove that Bowen made ‘contact with [F.B.]’ did not require the State to show that F.B. saw Bowen or that Bowen directly communicated with F.B. F.B.’s testimony that she saw Bowen’s truck in the driveway, heard glass breaking, and heard someone walking up and down her stairs, combined with police officer testimony that Bowen was found intoxicated in F.B.’s basement, was sufficient to demonstrate that Bowen made ‘contact with [F.B.].’ As such, we affirm.”
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2014AP767-CR State v. Bowen
Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Dallet, J., Brennan, J.
Although a defendant may seek retroactive application of an amendment to the sentencing guidelines by motion, he may not seek its application on direct appeal.
“After Hayden filed this appeal, Amendment 782 took effect. The revision is retroactive, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), (e)(1) (2014), making him potentially eligible for a future sentencing reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).1 Our handling of Hayden’s direct appeal is not changed, however, by Amendment 782 having taken effect. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g)(1); Deloney, 578 F.3d at 693–94. Hayden may ask the district court for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), but he has not yet done so and we do not consider that argument here.” Affirmed.
14-1812 U.S. v. Hayden
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Per curiam.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Free Newsletter
