OCCD

SC

03-11-2011

Letter/Correspondence

Comment: From U.S. Supreme Court Clerk's Office: petition for writ of certiorari denied 3/7/11. cjp

OCCD

SC

07-21-2010

Motion for Reconsideration

Filed By: Robert Henak
Submit Date: 8-4-2010
Decision: (D) Deny
Decision Date: 10-19-2010
IT IS ORDERED the motion for reconsideration is denied without costs.
Motion Response
Filed By: William Gansner
Submit Date: 8-4-2010

OCCD

SC

07-16-2010

Published Opinion Citation

786 N.W.2d 124

OCCD

SC

07-15-2010

Public Domain Citation

Comment: PDC No: 2010 WI 89

OCCD

SC

04-27-2010

Briefs Received At State Law Library

OCCD

SC

04-23-2010

Response

OCCD

SC

04-13-2010

Response Brief-Supreme Court
Response Brief - Supreme Court

Filed By: William Gansner

OCCD

SC

04-01-2010

Letter/Correspondence

Comment: Letter from AAG Gansner re: appellate briefs

OCCD

SC

03-26-2010

Briefs Received At State Law Library

OCCD

SC

03-15-2010

First Brief-Supreme Court
First Brief - Supreme Court

Filed By: Robert Henak

OCCD

SC

02-11-2010

Published Opinion Citation

322 Wis. 2d 372

OCCD

SC

02-11-2010

Order

Per Curiam Opinion; The members of the court disagree as to the disposition of petitioner Aaron Antonio Allen's motions for the recusal of Justice Michael J. Gableman citing the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, Sections 1 and 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and Wis. Stat. 757.19(2)(g). On February 4, 2010, Justice Michael J. Gableman informed the members of the court that he was withdrawing from participation in the court's consideration of Allen's recusal motions and was withdrawing his separate written opinion. Only six justices are therefore participating. Three justices, Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks, would order briefs and oral argument, as the parties have requested. Three justices, Justice David T. Prosser, Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, and Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, would issue an order denying the motions. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley and Crooks write in support of their proposed disposition. Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Prosser and Ziegler, writes in support of their proposed disposition. Individual writings by Justices Crooks, Prosser, and Ziegler are also filed. Because the members of the court disagree as to the disposition of Allen's motions as set forth above, the motions are not granted. No four justices have agreed to grant the motions.

OCCD

SC

01-15-2010

Order

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to Justice Michael J. Gableman individually is hereby denied.

OCCD

SC

08-13-2009

Additional Authorities

OCCD

SC

04-17-2009

Motion to Extend Time

Filed By: Robert Henak
Submit Date: 4-17-2009
Decision: (O) Other
Decision Date: 2-12-2010
IT IS ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this order the defendant-appellant-petitioner, Aaron Antonio Allen, must file a brief in this court; that within 20 days of filing the plaintiff-respondent, State of Wisconsin, must file either a brief or a statement that no brief will be filed; and that if a brief is filed by the plaintiff-respondent, within 10 days of filing the defendant-appellant-petitioner must file either a reply brief or a statement that no reply brief will be filed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any brief filed in this court the parties shall not incorporate by reference any portion of their court of appeals' brief or petition for review or response; instead, any material in these documents upon which there is reliance should be restated in the brief filed in this court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the first brief filed in this court must contain, as part of the appendix, a copy of the decision of the court of appeals in this case; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if they have not done so, within 30 days after the date of this order, each party must provide the clerk of this court with 10 copies of the brief previously filed on behalf of that party in the court of appeals; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument in this case will be scheduled
Motion Response
Filed By: William Gansner
Submit Date: 4-28-2009
See BR1 event due on 4-17-2009

OCCD

SC

04-15-2009

Letter/Correspondence

Comment: Letter from AAG Gansner re: copies of appellate briefs

OCCD

SC

03-18-2009

Court Changed to Supreme Court

OCCD

SC

10-13-2008

Order

IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney Robert Henak shall serve as counsel for defendant-appellant-petitioner. Attorney Henak's representation shall be on a pro bono basis and not subject to compensation under SCR ch. 81. The court notes that Aaron Antonio Allen has given his consent to be represented by Attorney Henak;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant-appellant-petitioner is directed to file a supplemental petition on or before January 5, 2009, to address whether the following issues are presented in Allen's case, and, if so, to include discussion of State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N.W.2d 893, State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574, and Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2003), with respect to the following issues:
1. Whether the no-merit procedure requires a defendant to file a response to avoid waiver of subsequent claims of error;

2. Whether appointed counsel is required to advise the defendant that a response to a no-merit report is necessary to preserve claims for further review; and

3. Whether to require a defendant to file a response to a no-merit report conflicts with a right to counsel on direct appeal.

OCCD

CA

10-01-2008

Letter/Correspondence

OCCD

SC

07-16-2008

Sua Sponte

Filed By: Supreme Court Supreme Court
Submit Date: 7-16-2008
Decision: (O) Other
Decision Date: 8-15-2008
IT IS ORDERED that the Atty. Robert Henak shall serve as counsel for defendant- appellant-petitioner. Atty. Henak's representation shall be on a pro bono basis and not subject to compensation under SCR ch. 81. The court notes that Aaron Antonio Allen has given his consent to be represented by Atty. Henak; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant-appellant-petitioner is directed to file a supplemental petition by 1/5/09, to address whether the following issues are presented in Allen's case, and, if so, to include discussion of State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N. W. 2d 893, State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N. W. 2d 574, and Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2003), with respect to the following issues: 1. Whether the no merit procedure requires a defendant to file a response to avoid waiver of subsequent claims of error; 2. Whether appointed counsel is required to advise the defendant that a response to a no merit report is necessary to preserve claims for further review; and Whether to require a defendant to file a response to a no merit report conflicts with a right to counsel on direct appeal.

OCCD

SC

07-02-2008

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Filed By: Sarah Larson
Submit Date: 7-3-2008
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 7-3-2008
ORD that the motion is granted. Plaintiff-respondent's supplemental response to petition for review shall be served and filed on or before 7-16-08.

OCCD

SC

06-11-2008

Order

ORD that the plaintiff-respondent, State of Wisconsin, is directed to file a supplemental response to the petition for review on or before 6-24-08, to include discussion of State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N.W.2d 893; State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574; Page v. Frank, 343 F3d 901 (7th Cir. 2003), with respect to the following issues: 1. Whether the no-merit procedure requires a defendant to file a response to avoid waiver of subsequent claims of error; 2. Whether appointed counsel is required to advise that a response to a no-merit report is required if a defendant wants to preserve claims for further review; and 3. Whether to require a defendant to file a response to a no-merit report conflicts with a right to counsel on direct appeal.

OCCD

CA

04-30-2008

Published Opinion Citation

311 Wis. 2d 489

OCCD

CA

04-30-2008

Opinion Ordered Unpublished

OCCD

SC

04-23-2008

Petition for Review

Filed By: Aaron Allen
Submit Date: 5-7-2008
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 3-18-2009
ORD petition for review is granted. Briefs 30/20/10.
Motion Response
Filed By: Sarah Larson
Submit Date: 5-7-2008
Motion Response
Filed By: Robert Henak
Submit Date: 1-6-2009
Motion Response
Filed By: William Gansner
Submit Date: 1-23-2009

OCCD

CA

11-30-2007

Submitted on Briefs

OCCD

CA

10-04-2007

Record and Briefs Sent to District 1

OCCD

CA

10-02-2007

Certificate of Service

OCCD

CA

09-25-2007

Motion to Extend Time

Filed By: Aaron Allen
Submit Date: 9-25-2007
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 9-28-2007
ORD the deadline for Allen to file a reply brief in this appeal is ext through 10-12-07.
See BRY event due on 10-12-2007

OCCD

CA

08-15-2007

Motion to Extend Time

Filed By: Sarah Larson
Submit Date: 8-16-2007
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 8-20-2007
ORD the deadline for the State to file its respondent's brief in this appeal is ext through 9-19-07.
See BRS event due on 9-19-2007

OCCD

CA

07-18-2007

Certificate of Service

OCCD

CA

07-14-2007

Brief & Appendix of Appellant(s)
Brief of Appellant

Filed By: Aaron Allen

OCCD

CA

05-04-2007

Record

OCCD

CA

04-11-2007

Rules of Appellate Procedure and Pro Se Guide Sent

OCCD

CA

04-06-2007

Notice of Appeal & Circuit Court Docket Entries

OCCD

CA

03-30-2007

Notice of Appeal filed in Circuit Court