State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr.

Appeal Number 2014AP002488 - CR

Supreme Court

CASE HISTORY
Status
Court
Filing Date
Anticipated Due Date
Activity
OCCD
SC
08-24-2016
Remittitur

OCCD
SC
07-12-2016
Cites
370 Wis. 2d 402

OCCD
SC
07-12-2016
Cites
882 N.W.2d 761

OCCD
SC
07-12-2016
Judge Panel: Roggensack, Abrahamson, Bradley, Prosser, Ziegler, Gableman, Bradley
Opinion: Opinion
Decision: Affirmed and remanded Pages: 44
Written by: Abrahamson, Shirley S.
Ziegler, Annette K. Wrote Dissenting Opinion 40 pages.
Bradley, Rebecca G. Wrote Dissenting Opinion 19 pages.
Order Text: The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court.

OCCD
SC
07-08-2016
Public Domain Citation
Comment: PDC No: 2016 WI 63

OCCD
SC
04-07-2016
Oral Argument
Comment: 1st case, 9:45 a.m. Atty Thomas J Balistreri for Pla-Res-Pet; Atty Catherine Malchow for Def-App

OCCD
SC
03-22-2016
Briefs Received At State Law Library

OCCD
SC
03-16-2016
Reply Brief-Supreme Court
Reply Brief-Supreme Court
Filed By: Thomas Balistreri

OCCD
SC
03-15-2016
Letter/Correspondence
Comment: From Clerk's Office to counsel: confirming oral argument date/time April 7, 2016 @ 9:45 a.m.

OCCD
SC
03-11-2016
Assigned-Oral Argument

OCCD
SC
03-01-2016
Response Brief-Supreme Court
Response Brief-Supreme Court
Filed By: Catherine Malchow

OCCD
SC
02-10-2016
First Brief-Supreme Court
First Brief-Supreme Court
Filed By: Thomas Balistreri
Comment: Appx to First Brief-Supreme Court

OCCD
SC
01-28-2016
Response
Comment: 10 addl copies of CA briefs for SC

OCCD
SC
01-20-2016
Attorney Change
Comment: Added ASPD Malchow as counsel for Timothy Finley per filing of Notice of Entry of Appearance.

OCCD
SC
01-11-2016
Caption Amended

OCCD
SC
01-11-2016
Court Changed to Supreme Court

OCCD
CA
11-11-2015
Final Publication

OCCD
CA
10-30-2015
Fee Waived
Comment: Filed by AG

OCCD
SC
10-29-2015
Petition for Review
Filed By: Thomas Balistreri
Submit Date: 11-17-2015
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 1-11-2016
ORD petition granted. FRO briefs due 30/20/10. 1. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur in part and dissent in part from the orders granting review in three cases, State v. Finley, 14AP2488-CR, Wisconsin Carry v. City of Madison, 2015AP146, and Regency West Apartments v. Racine, 2014AP2947. The efforts of one member of the court to unilaterally issue the grant orders threatened to contravene the court's internal procedures and raises the scent of lawlessness in this court. 2. On November 16, 2015, the court adopted a procedure governing when a justice may hold a matter in which a Commissioner of the SC recommended granting review. The procedure provides as follows: A justice, who wishes to hold a matter for which a Commissioner has recommended granting review, must submit in writing, with his or her e-mail votes, the specific reason(s) why he or she would not approve the grant as recommended by the Commissioner. Within 5 calendar days of that writing, all justices shall vote, by e-mail, to grant the matter, deny the matter, or otherwise approve the suggestions in the written proposal. If sufficient votes to grant the matter remain, the grant order shall issue within two business days. If the matter no longer has the requisite votes to grant, it shall be discussed in a court conference, but in any event, no later than at the next in-person petition for review conference. 3. The procedure was adopted pursuant to the Introduction to the SC's Internal Operating Procedures, which states that the IOP "may be changed without notice as circumstances require." The new procedure was adopted without any notice to the SC Commissioners and Clerk of the Supreme Court, let alone the litigants, lawyers, and the public. As a result, even members of the court staff are not apprised of the court's internal procedures and may err in their work. 4. A Commissioner of the SC recommended granting review in one of these three cases. In the other two cases, no recommendation regarding the granting of these petitions was made. 5. Although I opposed adopting this procedure, I followed it in holding the petition for review that the Commissioners recommended granting. On 1/7/16, I submitted in writing with my email votes on petitions for review my desire to hold this case and the reason why I would not approve the grant recommended by the Commissioners. According to the process outlined above, the justices are required to respond to my hold within 5 days. 6. Rather than wait for the votes of the justices, shortly after I submitted my holds, one member of the court, emailed the justices that unless she received votes from a majority of the court to honor my holds, orders would issue granting the petitions for review. 7. On 1/8/16, before any votes on my holds were received from any member of the court, a single member of the court emailed the justices that, because no justice had agreed with my request, these orders...


Motion Response
Filed By: Martha Askins
Submit Date: 11-17-2015

OCCD
CA
10-28-2015
Cites
872 N.W.2d 344

OCCD
CA
10-28-2015
Cites
365 Wis. 2d 275

OCCD
CA
10-28-2015
Opinion Ordered Published

OCCD
CA
10-28-2015
Public Domain Citation
Comment: PDC No: 2015 WI App 79

OCCD
CA
09-30-2015
Judge Panel: Stark, Hruz, Cane
Opinion: Opinion
Decision: Reversed and remanded Pages: 22
Written by: Hruz, Thomas M.
Order Text: Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings with directions.

OCCD
CA
05-12-2015
Submitted on Briefs

OCCD
CA
04-06-2015
Briefs Received At State Law Library

OCCD
CA
03-18-2015
Record and Briefs Sent to District 3

OCCD
CA
03-17-2015
Reply Brief
Reply Brief
Filed By: Martha Askins

Comment: received 10 copies of CA BRY for SC use 1/27/16 EW

OCCD
CA
02-27-2015
Brief of Respondent(s)
Brief of Respondent
Filed By: Thomas Balistreri

Comment: received 10 copies of CA BRS for SC use 1/28/16 EW

OCCD
CA
01-16-2015
Motion to Extend Time
Filed By: Thomas Balistreri
Submit Date: 1-20-2015
Decision: (G) Grant
Decision Date: 1-21-2015
ORD that the time for filing the respondent's brief is extended to 3/4/15.
See BRS event due on 3-4-2015

OCCD
CA
01-12-2015
Brief & Appx of Appellant(s)
Brief of Appellant
Filed By: Martha Askins

Comment: received 10 copies of CA BAP for SC use 1/27/16 EW Appx to Brief of Appellant(s)

OCCD
CA
12-09-2014
Court Order
IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for the trial court to decide the postconviction motion is extended to October 17, 2014.

OCCD
CA
12-05-2014
Sealed Documents
Comment: PSI #47

OCCD
CA
12-05-2014
Record
Comment: 1-1 to 117-1

OCCD
CA
11-14-2014
Court Reporter's Statement-Trans.
Court Reporter Name: (Fick, Jennifer)

OCCD
CA
11-12-2014
Transcript filed in Circuit Court

OCCD
CA
11-05-2014
Other Papers
Comment: CRS filed by L. Koenig

OCCD
CA
11-03-2014
Statement on Transcript
Filed By: Martha Askins
Status: Ordered

OCCD
CA
10-27-2014
Notif. Sent-Filing of NAP & Ct. Record

OCCD
CA
10-27-2014
Fee Waived
Comment: Filed by SPD

OCCD
CA
10-27-2014
Notice of Appeal & Circuit Court Docket Entries

OCCD
CA
10-24-2014
Notice of Appeal filed in Cir. Ct.

OCCD
CA
10-08-2014
Order of Circuit Court

OCCD
CA
10-19-2012
Judgment of Circuit Court