ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did Mr. Boyd knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter his guilty plea to one count of First Degree Reckless homicide? The circuit court accepted Mr. Boyd’s plea and entered the judgment of conviction.
2. Was there a factual basis for the plea? The circuit court accepted Mr. Boyd’s plea and entered the judgment of conviction
3. Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it sentenced Mr. Boyd to fifteen years initial confinement in prison followed by eight years extended supervision? The circuit court imposed the sentences.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In Milwaukee County Case No. 14-CF-4197 The State charged Mr. Boyd in a criminal complaint with one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver
…show more content…
12). At the motion hearing, Attorney Erickson explained that Mr. Boyd was adamant about the motion and that Mr. Boyd would be arguing it pro se. (R. 30: 2-3). Mr. Boyd argued that a probable cause determination had not been made within 48 hours of his arrest as required by Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). He argued that this resulted in a violation of Due Process, which was grounds for dismissal of the case. (R. 30: 5). The Court found that there was no Riverside violation because a copy of the signed probable cause statement and judicial determination was attached to the State’s response to the motion and was timely. (R. 7-8; R. …show more content…
Boyd could argue that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter his pleas and that he therefore should be allowed to withdraw them. Plea withdrawal after sentencing requires a showing that the withdrawal is necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.” State v. Booth, 152 Wis. 2d 232, 235, 237, 418 N.W.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1987). A defendant meets this showing if the plea is not constitutionally valid. Hatcher v. State, 82 Wis. 2d 559, 565, 266 N.W.2d 320 (1978). To establish that a plea is not constitutionally valid, the defendant must show that its entry was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 257, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). The record must establish that the defendant understood the charges against him and that the waiver of his constitutional rights was knowing and intelligent.
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
The appeal was filed based on the fact that Smith’s presentence investigation report(PSIR) revealed that he had an extensive juvenile record which included a history of at least twelve offenses. Smith argued that he was entitled to resentencing under MCR 5.913, rewritten as MCR 5.925(E). The information in the PSIR was supposed to be automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913(People v. Smith, 2016). The Court of Appeals considered two panels of discussion before deciding in favor of the
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
... to 360 months in prison. This case was considered ineffective assistance of counsel for one reason, which was counsel prejudice advice to client to reject a plea offer. In order for Cooper to show his Sixth Amendment was violated, he would have to show three things: (1) The ineffective advice, and that the plea offer would have been present to the courts, (2) the courts would have accepted the terms, and (3) the conviction sentence would be less than the actual judgment and sentence imposed. The outcome in this case changed how the plea bargaining system works. Defendants in criminal proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations meaning when the prosecutors offers a plea the defendant is entitled to be there so if he or she rejects the plea they know its actually coming from the defendant and not his attorney.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
If he had not treated the court with the contempt that he did then he
One flaw of the insanity plea is how the victims and their families are affected. For example on March 21, 2010, Kathy Powell, the mother of 21 year old Taylor Powell, who was brutally murdered by Jarrod Wyatt outside Klamath, Oregon, said the suspect's recent insanity plea was a complete lie. Mrs. Powell said she knows little about what happened that night, but voiced frustration about the defense's efforts to suggest her son somehow instigated the fight that led to his death. Wyatt, age 26, was being charged with murder, aggravated mayhem, and torture. He pleaded a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take
ABSTRACT: Terence Graham has been sentenced to life in prison for home invasion and attempted robbery. He lost his case at the Florida First District Court of Appeal, but then later appealed to the federal United States court. He won his case at the supreme court and the court said that the ruling Graham was given was cruel and unusually. In the end Florida stated that a juvenile should serve life in prison only if convicted of murder.