Legal Opinion

In Re Applications of Maroney and Kunz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1972PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

In Peterson v. State 1 this court held that the trial court is obligated to inform a convicted criminal defendant of his right to appeal. 2 If the trial court does not so inform the defendant, the defendant may pursue a late appeal. The petitioners in this case are indigent inmates of the Wisconsin State Prison and Wisconsin State Reformatory who allege that when they were convicted in 1971 they were not advised of their right to appeal in the trial court. They now apply to this court to appoint counsel for them to pursue a belated appeal under the mandate in Peterson. The court is thus faced…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Linkletter v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Ernst v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Peterson v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State v. StricklandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Loop v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Sass v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Holland v. StateCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
  4. State v. ArgizWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Mikulovsky v. SchubertDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1976

2 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