State v. Rory A. McKellips
Appeal Number 2014AP000827 - CR
Supreme Court
CASE HISTORY
|
Status
|
Court
|
Filing Date
|
Anticipated Due Date
|
Activity
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
11-14-2016
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: USSC Office of the Clerk: Petition for Writ of Certiorari is Denied.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
09-30-2016
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with US Supreme Court on 9-23-2016
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
08-02-2016
|
Remittitur
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
06-28-2016
|
Published Opinion Citation
|
|
|
369 Wis. 2d 437
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
06-28-2016
|
Published Opinion Citation
|
|
|
881 N.W.2d 258
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
06-28-2016
|
||
|
Judge Panel: Roggensack, Abrahamson, Bradley, Prosser, Ziegler, Gableman, Bradley
Opinion: Opinion Decision: Reversed Pages: 36 Written by: Bradley, Rebecca G. Abrahamson, Shirley S. Wrote Dissenting Opinion 20 pages. Bradley, Ann Walsh Joined Dissenting Opinion Prosser, David T. Jr. Took No Part Order Text: The decision of the court of appeals is reversed. |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
06-24-2016
|
Public Domain Citation
|
|
|
Comment: PDC No: 2016 WI 51
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-19-2016
|
Fee Paid
|
|
|
Comment: Receipt No: 16R 000941
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-07-2016
|
Oral Argument
|
|
|
Comment: at 1:30 p.m. Atty Katherine D. Lloyd for Pla-Res-Pet; Atty Scott Swid for Def-App
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-05-2016
|
Petition for Review
|
|
|
Filed By: Scott Swid
Submit Date: 4-5-2016 Decision: (D) Deny Decision Date: 6-28-2016 ORD that the petition for review of the court of appeals decision is denied as is the relief of release on bail for which he moved this court, without costs. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). For the reasons set forth in my dissent to the opinion reversing the decision of the court of appeals, which is also being issued today under the same caption and case number, I dissent from the denial of the petition for review regarding release on bail. The petition raises a number of important legal issues about the bail procedure to be followed following the reversal of a conviction by the court of appeals. I believe that although these issues have now been rendered moot in this case, these issues are likely to recur and could evade review in future cases due to time factors. I would therefore have the court address them in this case. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion. DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. Motion Response Filed By: Katherine Lloyd Submit Date: 4-19-2016 |
||||
|
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: Katherine Lloyd
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-14-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
03-10-2016
|
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
|
|
|
Filed By: Benjamin Krautkramer
Submit Date: 3-10-2016 Decision: (M) Dismiss Decision Date: 3-15-2016 ORD that the motion is dismissed. Comment: "Motion" re: release on bond |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-10-2016
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 3-10-2016 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 3-11-2016 ORD that the motion is granted. Plaintiff-respondent-petitioner's reply brief shall abe served and filed on or before March 16, 2016. No further time extensions will be granted. Prosser, J., did not participate. See BR3 event due on 3-16-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-10-2016
|
Brief of Amicus Curiae/Non-Party
Brief of Amicus Curiae - Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers |
|
|
Filed By: Robert Henak
Comment: Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-10-2016
|
Motion to File Amicus/Non-Party Brief
|
|
|
Filed By: Robert Henak
Submit Date: 3-10-2016 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 3-10-2016 ORD that the motion is granted and the brief is accepted for filing. Prosser, J., did not participate. Comment: Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-03-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-25-2016
|
Certificate of Filing by Mail
|
|
|
Comment: BR2-IB
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-24-2016
|
Response Brief-Supreme Court
Response Brief-Supreme Court |
|
|
Filed By: Benjamin Krautkramer
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-16-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-11-2016
|
Assigned for Oral Argument
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-15-2016
|
Sua Sponte
|
|
|
Filed By: Supreme Court Supreme Court
Submit Date: 1-19-2016 Decision: (N) No Action Decision Date: 2-9-2016 no action Motion Response Filed By: Scott Swid Submit Date: 2-8-2016 Comment: Letter from Attys Swid and Krautkramer seeking direction/guidance on behalf of circuit court re: whether acceptance of State's petition for review acts as a stay of enforcement over COA reversal of conviction underlying the ongoing appeal; 2/8/16 rec'd letter from Attys Swid and Krautkramer re: hearing set for 2/10/16 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-06-2016
|
First Brief-Supreme Court
First Brief-Supreme Court |
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-30-2015
|
Attorney Change
|
|
|
Comment: Attys Scott A Swid & Benjamin J Krautkramer representing defendant. See 12/30/15 cto.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-30-2015
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: Rcd notice of appearance from Atty Swid and Atty Krautkramer
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-14-2015
|
Order
|
|
|
ORD that the motion is granted in part. Defendant-appellant must file in this court either a response brief or a statement that no brief will be filed within 50 days of the filing of the brief-in-chief of plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, State of Wisconsin; FRO that the motion for Attorneys Thomas E. Brown, Kathryn A. Keppel, and Emily I. Lonergan to withdraw as counsel is held in abeyance pending the filing of a notice of appearance by successor counsel. Prosser, J., did not participate.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-10-2015
|
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
|
|
|
Filed By: Emily Lonergan
Submit Date: 12-11-2015 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 12-30-2015 ORD that the motion for Attorneys Thomas E. Brown, Kathryn A. Keppel, and Emily I Lonergan to withdraw as counsel is granted and Attorneys Scott A. Swid and Benjamin J. Krautkramer are substituted as counsel for defendant. Prosser, J., did not participate. Comment: MWC & MXT/BR2; Amended cover letter filed same day via fax indicating replacement counsel is Scott Swid; motion held in abeyance per cto 12/14/15, pending notice of appearance filing by new counsel (Swid) |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
11-24-2015
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 11-25-2015 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 11-25-2015 ORD that the motion is granted. Plaintiff-respondent-petitioner's brief-in-chief shall be served and filed on or before 1/6/16. Prosser, J., did not participate. See BR1 event due on 1-6-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
11-23-2015
|
Response
|
|
|
Comment: 10 addl copies of CA briefs for SC
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
11-16-2015
|
Caption Amended
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
11-16-2015
|
Court Changed to Supreme Court
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-11-2015
|
Final Publication
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-29-2015
|
Published Opinion Citation
|
|
|
864 N.W.2d 106
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-29-2015
|
Published Opinion Citation
|
|
|
361 Wis. 2d 773
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-29-2015
|
Opinion Ordered Published
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-29-2015
|
Public Domain Citation
|
|
|
Comment: PDC No: 2015 WI App 31
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-16-2015
|
Fee Waived
|
|
|
Comment: PRE filed by State
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-16-2015
|
Petition for Review
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 4-30-2015 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 11-16-2015 ORD that the petition for review is granted as to the following issues: 1. What is the proper interpretation of Wis. Stat. 948.075(1r), including the term computerized communication system? a. Does the use of a cellular telephone to send text messages, make telephone calls, or leave voicemail messages constitute the use of a computerized communication system? b. Must an individual use the data transmission capabilities of a cellular telephone or otherwise use the Internet to constitute the use of a computerized communication system? 2. Was the jury instruction regarding the charge of violating Wis. Stat. 948.075 an accurate statement of the law? Is asking whether the cellular phone constituted a computerized communication system equivalent to asking whether the cellular phone constituted a component of a computerized communication system? 3. Is Wis. Stat. 948.075(1r) unconstitutionally vague as applied and interpreted by the circuit court because persons of ordinary intelligence would not understand that use of a mobile phone that has no independent internet capabilities would constitute use of a computerized communication system in violation of law? 4. As a matter of law, can a new trial in the interest of justice be granted on the ground the real controversy was not fully tried based on a waived challenge to a jury instruction where the erroneous instruction was harmless error? If the jury instruction in this case was erroneous, was the error harmless? 5. Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion by granting a new trial in the interest of justice without analyzing whether this is an exceptional case that warrants the extraordinary remedy of discretionary reversal? FRO that pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.62(6), the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner may not raise or argue issues other than the issues set forth in the order; and FRO briefs due 30/20/10; and FRO 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 FRO 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 FRO that 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 FRO that the allowance of costs, if any, in connection with the granting of the petition will abide the decision of this court on review. Prosser, J., did not participate. Motion Response Filed By: Kathryn Keppel Submit Date: 4-30-2015 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
03-17-2015
|
||
|
Judge Panel: Hoover, Stark, Hruz
Opinion: Opinion Decision: Reversed and remanded Pages: 12 Written by: Hoover, Michael W. Order Text: Judgment reversed and cause remanded |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
02-04-2015
|
Oral Argument
|
|
|
Comment: in the Court of Appeals District III Courtroom, 2100 Stewart Avenue, Suite 310, Wausau @ 1pm
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-22-2014
|
Letter/Correspondence
|
|
|
Comment: From Judges Hoover, Stark and Hruz to parties re: oral argument restriction of appellant's arguments I.A. and I.B.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-12-2014
|
Assigned for Oral Argument
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
11-06-2014
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
10-22-2014
|
Record and Briefs Sent to District 3
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
10-22-2014
|
Reply Brief
Reply Brief |
|
|
Filed By: Kathryn Keppel
Comment: Received 10 copies of BRY for SC use, PS 11-23-2015 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
10-03-2014
|
Brief of Respondent(s)
Brief of Respondent |
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Comment: Received 10 additional copies of CA BRS for SC use EW 11/17/15 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-15-2014
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 9-15-2014 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 9-17-2014 ORD that time for filing the respondent's brief is extended to 10/3/14. See BRS event due on 10-3-2014 Comment: 3rd request |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-02-2014
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 9-2-2014 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 9-4-2014 ORD that time for filing the respondent's brief is extended to 9/18/14. See BRS event due on 9-18-2014 Comment: 2nd request |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-01-2014
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Katherine Lloyd
Submit Date: 8-1-2014 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 8-5-2014 ORD that the time for filing the respondent's brief is extended to September 3, 2014. See BRS event due on 9-3-2014 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-18-2014
|
Attorney Change
|
|
|
Comment: W/drew AAG Weber, added AAG Lloyd as counsel for State per letter.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-02-2014
|
Brief & Appendix of Appellant(s)
Brief of Appellant |
|
|
Filed By: Kathryn Keppel
Comment: Separate Appendix, received 10 copies of BAP for SC use, PS 11-23-2015 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-20-2014
|
Record
|
|
|
Comment: 1-10 to 82-1, Separate Box
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-12-2014
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: Rec'd copy of record inspection/compilation notice sent by COC to parties.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-15-2014
|
Notif. Sent-Filing of NAP & Ct. Record
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-15-2014
|
Fee Paid
|
|
|
Comment: Receipt No: 14R 001024
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-14-2014
|
Notice of Appeal & Circuit Court Docket Entries
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-09-2014
|
Statement on Transcript
|
|
|
Filed By: Kathryn Keppel
Status: Prev. Filed |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-09-2014
|
Notice of Appeal filed in Circuit Court
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-06-2013
|
Judgment of Circuit Court
|
|