Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief in this challenge to a condition of extended supervision and probation that prohibited Petitioner from living with any women or unrelated children without the permission of the court, holding that the circuit court erred by denying Petitioner's request to transfer the approval power to the Department of Corrections (DOC) without clarifying how the imposed condition was lawful.In denying Petitioner's postconviction motion to transfer the authority to regulate Defendant's residential placements to DOC the circuit court concluded that the DOC's practices were "incompatible with the program of probation envisioned by the court." The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court "all but said it intended to administer [Defendant's] condition through case-by-case oversight, which it cannot do." The Court remanded the cause to the circuit court for it to clarify how the imposed condition was consistent with the law or to modify its order accordingly. View "State v. Williams-Holmes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court to suppress the results of a search of Defendant, holding that the law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant, and therefore, the underlying search was a lawful search incident to arrest.A police officer executed a traffic stop of Defendant for speeding and, during her initial contact with Defendant, "detected an odor of raw marijuana." The officer called for back-up, and two officers escorted Defendant out of the vehicle. The officers proceeded to search Defendant based on the odor of marijuana and found two baggies containing cocaine and fentanyl. Defendant filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the State lacked probable cause to arrest and search him. The circuit court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant on the belief that he was committing or had committed a crime, and therefore, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that Defendant was not entitled to sentence credit on a Langlade County charge for time served in the Oneida County Jail, holding that, under State v. Floyd, 606 N.W.2d 155 (Wis. 2008), Defendant was entitled to credit on the Langlade County charge for which Defendant was untimely sentenced.During the course of two hours Defendant stole and drove three trucks in Langlade County and was arrested after driving the third truck over the border in Oneida County. The State brought charges against Defendant in Oneida County. While Defendant remained in the Oneida County jail the State brought charges in Langlade County. The two cases were consolidated in Langlade County. Defendant pled guilty to no contest to three charges, one from Langlade County and two from Oneida County. Defendant later filed a motion to modify the judgment of conviction, arguing that he was entitled to sentence credit on his Langlade County charge for time served in the Oneida County jail. The circuit court agreed and awarded Defendant 433 days of credit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit for time spent in custody in the Oneida County Jail. View "State v. Fermanich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's denial of Defendant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that any error during the underlying proceedings that may have violated Defendant's right to confrontation was harmless.Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of delivering more than fifty grams of methamphetamine. In his postconviction petition, Defendant argued that the admission of certain testimony was hearsay, and therefore, his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment was violated. The circuit court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that if any error occurred it was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming without deciding that Defendant's confrontation right was violated, the error was harmless. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that rezoning by amending a local government's zoning ordinance is legislative in character, and therefore, due process did not require an impartial decision-maker.Trustee Jan Miller (Trustee Miller), who served on the Village Board of Lyndon Station, cast the deciding vote in favor of an application filed by her daughter and son-in-law to amend the Village's zoning ordinance to rezone their residential property for commercial development. Thomas Miller (Miller), a local business owner, sought certiorari review of the Village's Zoning Board Appeals' decision upholding the Board's vote to amend the zoning ordinance. The circuit court reversed, concluding that Trustee Miller was not a fair and impartial decision-maker, and therefore, her participation in the vote violated due process. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Village Board's action was legislative in nature, and therefore, Miller was not entitled to an impartial decision-maker. View "Miller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Lyndon Station" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court in this legal malpractice case, holding that there was no error.A media company entered into a purportedly tax-friendly sale with the assistance of a tax law firm, an accounting firm, and Murphy Desmond. After the deal closed and the shareholders had received their payout, the IRS levied various taxes and penalties against the shareholders. Several shareholders brought suit. Terry and Sandy Shockley intervened and filed a complaint against all three entities. The Shockleys subsequently settled with two entities, leaving them with a legal malpractice claim against Murphy Desmond. The jury found Murphy Desmond negligent in part, but the circuit court concluded that it was entitled to indemnification from the entities who settled, leaving the Shockleys with no further recovery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in accord with Fleming v. Thresherman's Mutual Insurance Co., 388 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. 1986), Murphy Desmond owed no damages to the Shockleys. View "Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err by ordering Defendant in this case to register as a sex offender for fifteen years rather than until his death and did not err in finding Defendant ineligible to participate in the earned release program (ERP).Defendant pled guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography. As part of Defendant's sentence the circuit court ordered him to comply with sex offender registration requirements for fifteen years and found him ineligible to participate in the ERP. The State requested that the circuit court amend the judgment of conviction (JOC) to reflect that Defendant was required to register for life. The circuit court denied the motion. Defendant also moved to amend the JOC on the grounds that it was error not to allow him to participate in the ERP. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both requests to amend the JOC, holding that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion. View "State v. Rector" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Femala Fleming's action against Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc. (AAU) as untimely under Wis. Stat. 893.54, holding that Fleming's negligence claim against AAU was not timely filed.Fleming argued that she timely filed her negligence action because the governing statute of limitations was Wis. Stat. 893.587. Specifically, Fleming argued that because she alleged AAU negligently hired, retained, and supervised the man who sexually assaulted her, section 893.587 governed her claim where her injury was "caused by an act that would constitute a violation of" an offense enumerated in chapter 948. The Supreme Court held (1) section 893.587 did not provide the governing statute of limitations for Fleming's negligence claim because Fleming did not allege that AAU committed an enumerated injury-causing act; (2) the governing time limit was the three-year statute of limitations under section 893.54, as extended by Wis. Stat. 893.16; and (3) therefore, the circuit court correctly granted AAU's motion to dismiss. View "Fleming v. Amateur Athletic Union of United States, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the challenges to the victim's rights amendment termed "Marsy's Law" that was brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Inc. and several citizens (WJI) failed and that the amendment was validly ratified and properly part of the Wisconsin Constitution.In April 2020, the people of Wisconsin ratified Marsy's Law. In this action, WJI argued that the ballot question for Marsy's Law that was submitted to Wisconsin voters violated Wis. Const. art. XII, 1 because it misled voters by neglecting the amendment's impact on the rights of criminal defendants. The circuit court granted declaratory judgment for WJI, concluding that the ballot question failed to meet requirements as to content and form. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mary's Law was validly submitted to and ratified by voters, as required by the constitution. View "Wis. Justice Initiative, Inc. v. Wis. Elections Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled State v. Shiffra, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993), which created a process by which a criminal defendant could obtain a limited review by way of in camera review by the court of a victim's privately-held, otherwise privileged health records, holding that Shiffra is unsound in principle and unworkable in practice and has been undermined by developments in the law.Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his son, T.A.J., and his daughter. Citing Shiffra, Defendant sought in camera review of T.A.J.'s mental health and counseling records. T.A.J. opposed the motion, but the circuit court concluded that he lacked standing. On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed, concluding that Marsy's Law gave crime victims such as T.A.J. standing to oppose Shiffra motions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to deny Defendant's motion for in camera review, holding that Shiffra was wrongly decided and is overruled. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law