E Point Perfect
Law \ Legal

Defendant’s s. 974.06 motion is barred because he is no longer in custody under the conviction he’s challenging

[ad_1]

State v. Michael J. Viezbicke, 2021AP2172, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Viezbicke filed a postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging his convictions in a 2017 misdemeanor case. The court of appeals holds the motion was barred because he is no longer in custody under the sentence imposed in […]

[ad_2]

Source link

Related posts

Worth the Wait – Texas Supreme Court Tells The Trial Judge To Compel Arbitration Nine Years After the Lawsuit was Filed

The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws

Take the Lead (Part I): How to Build a Modern Law Firm Intake System

Join Us: U.S. Employment Seminar in Tel Aviv

New CFIUS Guidelines Reflect Shift in Enforcement Posture

Healthcare & Life Sciences Private Equity Deal Tracker: Amulet Capital Sells OPEN Health