Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Stephen LeMere

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2016No. 2013AP002433-CRPublished

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Missouri v. FryeSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  5. Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API