In an abbreviated opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court clarified its previous, murky plurality decision in State v. Johnson on State v. Shiffra jurisprudence.

In an unusually terse decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reached a startling new conclusion in Shiffra jurisprudence without a unifying analytic rationale.

Sentencing Cruel and unusual punishment

Criminal Procedure Out-of-court identifications; self-representation; Confrontation Clause Steven Johnson, pro se, appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery by threat of force pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 943.32(1)(b) (2007-08). Johnson sets forth numerous grounds for his appeal, all of which are wholly without merit. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. Not recommended ...

Criminal Procedure New trials; newly discovered evidence Jimmie Johnson appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. Because Johnson does not demonstrate that the evidence he relies on would raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt, we affirm. This opinion will not be published. 2010AP157 State v. Johnson Dist I, Milwaukee County, Dallet, ...

1st-degree Intentional Homicide Sufficiency of the evidence Deangelo J. Johnson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury’s verdict, on one count of first-degree intentional homicide. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We reject this argument and affirm. Affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 2010AP1567-CR State v. Johnson Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Donald, ...