Wis. justices agree to review cases in light of Padilla

Listen to this article

The state Supreme Court will take up two cases this term regarding the scope of defense counsel’s obligation to advise defendants of their likely risk of deportation in light of Padilla.

Decisions in both State v. Ortiz-Mondragon, 2013AP2435-CR, and State v. Shata, 2013AP1437-CR, could clarify what constitutes a clear consequence under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) and what the Sixth Amendment requires of defense attorneys who represent noncitizens and clients, according to a news release from the Director of State Courts’ office.

Ortiz-Mondragon is a criminal case involving an immigrant from Mexico charged with substantial battery, false imprisonment, felony intimidation of a victim, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct, all with a domestic abuse enhancer.

Shata involves an Egyptian national charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana as party to a crime.

The cases were two of three the court agreed to accept Monday, according to the release. It opted to deny review of 60 cases.

The third case accepted for review, State v. Williams, 2014AP1099-CR, involves the appeal of a murder conviction. The justices’ decision is expected to resolve a potential conflict in two prior court decisions relating to sufficiency of evidence challenges: State v. Wulff, 207 Wis. 2d 143, 557 N.W.2d 813 (1997), in which the evidence was measured against the instructions the jury actually received; and State v. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, 347 Wis. 2d 559, 830 N.W.2d 681 in which the evidence was measured against the statutory requirements.