Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this commitment-extension proceeding the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court’s order denying J.M.’s motion for post-disposition relief in which J.M. claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court answered (1) J.M. had a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in his Chapter 41 commitment-extension hearing, and the Strickland standard is the correct standard for evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a commitment-extension hearing; (2) J.M. did not show that a reasonable probability existed that the result of the proceeding would have been different had his trial counsel’s performance not been allegedly deficient regarding J.M.’s appearance in prison garb; and (3) J.M. did not establish that he was entitled to a new trial on the ground that his wearing of prison garb during the trial so distracted the jury that justice was miscarried, and the circuit court’s conflicting jury instructions did not entitle J.M. to a new trial in the interest of justice. View "Winnebago County v. J.M." on Justia Law

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon. During trial, the State presented testimony from two men that Defendant was their accomplice in the robberies. Defendant later filed a motion for a new trial alleging that he had newly discovered evidence represented by the affidavits of three men alleging that the State’s witnesses lied when they testified that Defendant was involved in the subject crimes. The circuit court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the affidavits were merely cumulative evidence and were insufficient to require the circuit court to hold a hearing on the motion for a new trial because they were supported by neither newly discovered corroborating evidence or circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. View "State v. McAlister" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon. During trial, the State presented testimony from two men that Defendant was their accomplice in the robberies. Defendant later filed a motion for a new trial alleging that he had newly discovered evidence represented by the affidavits of three men alleging that the State’s witnesses lied when they testified that Defendant was involved in the subject crimes. The circuit court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the affidavits were merely cumulative evidence and were insufficient to require the circuit court to hold a hearing on the motion for a new trial because they were supported by neither newly discovered corroborating evidence or circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. View "State v. McAlister" on Justia Law

At issue in this foreclosure case was whether presentment by a party’s attorney of an original, wet-ink note endorsed in blank is admissible into evidence and enforceable against the borrower without further proof that the holder had possession at the time the foreclosure action was filed.The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ summary disposition reversing the circuit court’s foreclosure judgment against Defendant in favor of Bank. Bank produced a note at trial, and the circuit court concluded it was the original note executed by the borrower. The court of appeals concluded that the issue of possession of the original note had to be proven at trial and that Bank was required to present testimony from a witness with personal knowledge who could verify possession of the note by Bank up to the moment Bank presented the note to the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that presentment to the trier of fact in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding of the original, wet-ink note endorsed in blank establishes the holder’s possession and entitles the holder to enforce the note. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wuensch" on Justia Law

At issue in this foreclosure case was whether presentment by a party’s attorney of an original, wet-ink note endorsed in blank is admissible into evidence and enforceable against the borrower without further proof that the holder had possession at the time the foreclosure action was filed.The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ summary disposition reversing the circuit court’s foreclosure judgment against Defendant in favor of Bank. Bank produced a note at trial, and the circuit court concluded it was the original note executed by the borrower. The court of appeals concluded that the issue of possession of the original note had to be proven at trial and that Bank was required to present testimony from a witness with personal knowledge who could verify possession of the note by Bank up to the moment Bank presented the note to the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that presentment to the trier of fact in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding of the original, wet-ink note endorsed in blank establishes the holder’s possession and entitles the holder to enforce the note. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wuensch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s decision rejecting Defendant’s motion to vacate his judgments of conviction and requesting a new trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a new trial.In his motion, Defendant argued that his first trial, which resulted in convictions for the sexual assault of two victims, was unfair because the State shifted the burden of proof and distorted the jury’s credibility determinations and that the jury based its verdict in part on inadmissible evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding (1) the State’s trial commentary was not improper; and (2) there was no reasonable probability that redacting the challenged evidence would have changed the result of the trial. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon, in violation of the Concealed Carry Statute, Wis. Stat. 941.23(2).In convicting Defendant, the trial court rejected Defendant’s argument that because his conduct was in compliance with the Safe Transport Statute, Wis. Stat. 167.31(2)(b), his conviction was precluded under the Concealed Carry Statute. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that compliance with the Safe Transport Statute does not preclude conviction for a violation of the Concealed Carry Statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Concealed Carry Statute and Safe Transport Statute are not in conflict; and (2) the Concealed Carry Statute is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs’ underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier, Allstate Property and Casualty Co. (Allstate), holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Plaintiffs failed to provide Allstate with timely notice of the UIM claim and that they failed to rebut the presumption that Allstate was prejudiced by the untimely notice.Specifically at issue in this case was whether the court of appeals misinterpreted the UIM policy’s “proof of claim” provision as a “notice of accident” provision. The Supreme Court held (1) the operative event triggering the notice requirement in Plaintiffs’ UIM is the tender of the tortfeasor’s underlying policy limit, not the accident itself; (2) Wis. Stat. 631.81(1) does not apply to the UIM policy provision at issue; and (3) therefore, Plaintiffs provided Allstate with timely proof of their UIM claim as required by the policy. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Shugarts v. Mohr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Oshkosh in this action challenging the special assessment imposed by the City following the reconfiguration of a traditional traffic light intersection into a roundabout. The Court held (1) the term “special benefits” in Wisconsin’s eminent domain statute has the same meaning in Wisconsin’s special assessment statute, and the City’s admission that special benefits are non-existent in the context of an earlier eminent domain proceeding constitutes relevant evidence in a later challenge to the special assessment; and (2) the court of appeals erred in concluding that Plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded the City’s special assessment and to establish sufficient genuine issues of material fact. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for a trial. View "CED Properties, LLC v. City of Oshkosh" on Justia Law

The DNR appealed the circuit court’s decision restoring contested Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit conditions that the DNR had rejected. The DNR selected District II as the appellate venue. A single court of appeals judge issued an order sua sponte transferring venue from District II to District IV, noting that District IV was the proper venue because it encompassed the circuit court that issued the judgment from which the DNR appealed. The DNR then petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ requiring the court of appeals to transfer venue back to District II. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a supervisory writ, holding (1)Wis. Stat. 752.21(2) gave DNR the right to select appellate venue under the circumstances of this case; (2) it was the court of appeals’ plain duty to hear the DNR’s appeal in District II; and (3) the DNR met the requirements for the issuance of a supervisory writ. View "State ex rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV" on Justia Law