State v. Stephen LeMere
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.
¶ 73. (dissenting). I agree that the criminal conduct described by the majority is heinous. If we were called upon as a court to condemn such conduct, I am confident that there would be immediate and unanimous condemnation.1
¶ 74. Our task in this review, however, is not to assess the defendant's conduct. Rather, we are called upon to analyze and apply a rule of law.
¶ 75. At issue is whether LeMere's counsel should have advised him that he is automatically eligible for involuntary, indefinite civil commitment *664after serving his criminal sentence. The precise issue is whether the Sixth Amendment…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Missouri v. FryeSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.