From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. McCaughtry

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Nov 7, 2006
2006 WI 121 (Wis. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2004AP548-W.

Decided November 7, 2006.

MOTION for reconsideration. Reconsideration denied.


Marvin Coleman, the petitioner, moves the court to clarify or to reconsider its decision in the above captioned case.

¶ 2. We deny Coleman's motion for reconsideration.

¶ 3. However, we do clarify our opinion to facilitate its application. Accordingly, we amend footnote 13 to read as follows:

At the subsequent fact finding hearing in this habeas corpus proceeding, laches may be considered in regard to its effect on any potential issues, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, suppression or a retrial of the crimes of which Coleman stands convicted.


I would deny the motion for reconsideration, but I would amend the opinion to provide for remand on the issue of laches, as Justice Louis B. Butler's concurring opinion (in which I joined) requested. I do not ordinarily continue on reconsideration the position I took in concurrence or dissent. In the present case, however, the defendant has provided the court material not previously before us to show that the assumed factual basis upon which the court decided laches as a matter of law may be erroneous. I have not explored whether the new material is relevant to the issue of laches. This case is being remanded; the court of appeals should examine the submitted material, take evidence, and hear the parties to determine laches, an issue upon which the State has the burden of proof. For the reasons set forth, I dissent.

¶ 5. I am authorized to state that Justice LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. joins this dissent.


Summaries of

State v. McCaughtry

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Nov 7, 2006
2006 WI 121 (Wis. 2006)
Case details for

State v. McCaughtry

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Wisconsin EX REL. Marvin COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Gary R…

Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Date published: Nov 7, 2006

Citations

2006 WI 121 (Wis. 2006)
2006 WI 121
723 N.W.2d 424

Citing Cases

Ripco Credit Union v. Bukovic

¶ 13 The third prong of laches required the circuit court to determine if Foltz was prejudiced due to…

Zizzo v. Lakeside Steel Mfg. Co.

The circuit court noted that each of the elements of the doctrine was present: unreasonable delay, because no…