Marvin Coleman v. Gary R. McCaughtry
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 121 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2004AP548-W COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Marvin Coleman, Petitioner, v. Gary R. McCaughtry, Warden, Waupun Correctional Institution and Matthew J. Frank, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondents. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: November 7, 2006 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). BUTLER, JR., J., joins the dissent. 2006 WI 121 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2004AP548-W (L.C. No. 1985CR2721 & 1985CR2722) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin ex rel. Marvin Coleman, Petitioner, FILED v. NOV 7, 2006 Gary R. McCaughtry, Warden, Waupun Correctional Institution and Matthew J. Frank, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Respondents. MOTION for reconsideration. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Marvin Reconsideration denied. 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 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 as No. retrial of convicted. the crimes of 2 which Coleman 2004AP548-W stands No. ¶4 deny SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. the motion for 2004AP548-W.ssa (dissenting). reconsideration, but I would I would amend the opinion to provide for remand on the issue of laches, as Justice Louis B. Butler's requested. concurring opinion (in which I joined) I do not ordinarily continue on reconsideration the position I took in concurrence or dissent. In the present case, however, court the defendant has provided the material not previously before us to show that the assumed factual basis upon which the court erroneous. decided laches as a matter of law may be 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. 1 No. 1 2004AP548-W.ssa
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
