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
Cites
369 Wis. 2d 437

OCCD
SC
06-28-2016
Cites
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
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-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
Court 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
Cites
864 N.W.2d 106

OCCD
CA
04-29-2015
Cites
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-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 & Appx 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 & Court Record

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 Cir. Ct.

OCCD
CA
12-06-2013
Judgment of Circuit Court