2012AP1180 Keyes et al. v. Waldbillig
A woman who built a mansion and bought a Jaguar while collecting roughly $3 million in taxpayer subsidies from her Milwaukee child care centers has pleaded guilty to fraud, theft and conspiracy.
1993AP1135-D, 1994AP1838-D & 1996AP884-D BAPR v. Woodard
Appellate and post-conviction practice is not just limited to direct appeals, §974.06 motions or motions to modify a sentence. Several decisions are reviewable in state court by either a petition for writ of certiorari or a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The question of which to do when depends on the type of decision you seek to challenge.
Before the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28 on May 10, the test for seeking a sentence modification based on a new factor was a little bit muddled. The Wisconsin Supreme Court used Harbor to clarify it.
To say that Governor Scott Walker’s proposed biennial budget has gotten a little attention is a huge understatement. But little attention has focused on the immediate impact it will have on inmates serving sentences in Wisconsin prisons.
The timeline for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court challenging a state conviction is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Recently, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a state inmate’s challenge to his sentence tolls the deadline.
On Jan. 31, 2011, the Legislature did something that the Wisconsin courts have resisted for years. It made Wisconsin a Daubert state for the purposes of admitting expert testimony.
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in two related plea cases addressing ineffective assistance of counsel, Lafler v. Cooper (No. 10-2009) and Missouri v. Frye (No. 10-444).
Last month I discussed when appointed counsel should give the required no-merit advice. But what should attorneys do when clients ask the inevitable question: “What do you think I should do?” On the whole, attorneys should discourage clients from choosing the no-merit report option. Six months ago, Justice Prosser authored the decision in State v. [...]
The no-merit report procedure laid out in WIS. STAT. (RULE) 809.32 applies only to appointed counsel on direct appeal. The process can be confusing, but when to start it should not be.
Over the summer, the Court of Appeals issued four decisions involving criminal cases, both published and unpublished, sanctioning counsel for various infractions. In one decision, the Court sanctioned counsel from both parties. What piqued the Court’s ire the most were false appendix certifications and, in one case, missing record citations.
