State v. Smith
| Citation | 367 Wis.2d 483,878 N.W.2d 135,2016 WI 23 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013AP1228–CR.,2013AP1228–CR. |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent–Petitioner, v. Jimmie Lee SMITH, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, the cause was argued by Christine A. Remington, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was Brad D. Schimel.
For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief by John T. Wasielewski, and Wasielewski & Erickson, Milwaukee, and oral argument by John T. Wasielewski.
¶ 1 We review a published decision of the court of appeals1 THAT REVERSED THE MIlwaukee county circUit court's2 denial of defendant Jimmie Lee Smith's (Smith) postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction.
¶ 2 Smith was convicted of second-degree sexual assault, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(a)(2013–14),3 and sentenced to 25 years of initial confinement and 15 years of extended supervision. Subsequently, Smith filed a postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, alleging that he was incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing. The postconviction court appointed experts to evaluate Smith and conducted a retrospective competency evaluation. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court found that Smith had been competent to stand trial and be sentenced.
¶ 3 The court of appeals reversed, and the State petitioned for review. In its petition for review, the State raises the following issues: (1) whether the court of appeals improperly weighed evidence rather than deferring to the postconviction court; (2) whether the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard of review to the circuit court's finding that Smith was competent at trial and sentencing, which finding the State asserts is not clearly erroneous; and (3) whether the court of appeals exceeded its constitutional authority by engaging in improper fact finding.
¶ 4 We conclude that the court of appeals failed to apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to the postconviction court's finding of competency and improperly weighed evidence rather than giving deference to the postconviction court's finding. Reviewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude that the postconviction court's finding that Smith was competent to stand trial and be sentenced is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.4
¶ 5 On the night of October 2, 2007, Smith followed the victim, A.H., out of a bar, beat and raped her. During the course of the attack, Smith hit A.H. in the face, punched her, and slammed her head against the concrete until she was unconscious. After A.H. regained consciousness, she went to a nearby house and asked the occupants to call 911.
¶ 6 On January 7, 2009, the State charged Smith with second-degree sexual assault, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(a). Prior to trial, Smith made inculpatory statements to police, and the circuit court held a Miranda5 -Goodchild6 hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court conducted the following colloquy with Smith:
¶ 7 A jury trial began on October 12, 2009,7 where Smith was represented by Attorney Stephen Sargent. After the State presented its case-in-chief, the circuit court conducted another colloquy with Smith:
¶ 8 Smith was convicted on October 14, 2009. Smith's sentencing hearing was held on December 11, 2009, where he continued to be represented by Attorney Sargent. At sentencing, the State recommended the "maximum penalty of 25 years' confinement followed by 15 years' extended supervision" due to Smith's numerous previous convictions and pattern of violent, sexual assault. Prior to imposing sentence, Smith made the following statement:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
...a reasonable degree of rational understanding;’ and (2) ‘has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.’ " State v. Smith, 2016 WI 23, ¶35, 367 Wis. 2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135 (quoting State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, ¶27, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477 ). "This two-part ‘unde......
-
Smith v. Anderson
...the underlying decision, or if there are issues that need to be decided other than those relied on by the court of appeals. See State v. Smith , 2016 WI 23, ¶41, 367 Wis.2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135, petition for cert. filed (U.S., Oct. 10, 2016 (No. 16-6409); see also Wis. Stat. Ann. § 809.62(3)......
-
State v. Lynch
...J., Ann Walsh Bradley, J., and Prosser, J., each concurring separately); State v. Smith, 2016 WI 23, 367 Wis.2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135 (lead op. of Roggensack, C.J., joined by Prosser, J., and Gableman, J.); United Food & Comm. Workers Union, Local 1473 v. Hormel Foods Corp., 2016 WI 13, 367 W......
-
State v. Hendricks
...to Bangert by failing to raise this issue in a cross-petition for review or in its response to Hendricks' petition for review. See State v. Smith, 2016 WI 23, ¶ 41, 367 Wis. 2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135.IV. CONCLUSION¶33 We hold sexual contact is not an element of the crime of child enticement. R......
-
THE DEMISE OF THE LAW-DEVELOPING FUNCTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
...520 (lead op. of Gableman, J. with Abrahamson, J., Ann Walsh Bradley, J., and Prosser, J., each concurring separately); State v. Smith, 2016 WI 23, 367 Wis.2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135 (lead op. of Roggensack, C.J., joined by Prosser, J., and Gableman, J.); United Food & Comm. Workers Union, ......