by admin
on November 19, 2020
State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2019AP1317, 11/17/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/27/21, affirmed, 3/22/22; case activity (including briefs)
Police found Van Linn injured and intoxicated near the scene of an accident, and an ambulance took him to the hospital for treatment. At the hospital Van Linn refused an officer’s request that consent to a blood draw; the officer, claiming exigency, ordered blood taken anyway. Van Linn moved to suppress and the court held there was no exigency, and accordingly suppressed the BAC results. Shortly thereafter, the district attorney asked the court to approve a subpoena of Van Linn’s treatment records from the hospital; the court issued the subpoena and the hospital turned over the records, which included the results of the hospital’s own blood test. Van Linn asked the court to suppress those as well, but it declined. He was convicted and appealed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2020
State v. Frank P. Smogoleski, 2019AP1780-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state wins its appeal of two circuit court orders, one excluding the use of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who is now dead, the other excluding other-acts evidence. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2020
State v. Timothy M. Argall, 2020AP907-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Argall was arrested for OWI based on a plethora of evidence—viz., driving after dark without headlights, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, inability to follow questions or give direct answers, admission of drinking 4 to 6 beers, 0.201 PBT. His gripe, though, is with the pre-FST pat down that found a pot pipe in his pocket. Assuming it was invalid, the pat down certainly doesn’t invalidate the basis for detaining or arresting Argall for OWI. Nor does Argall develop any argument challenging the circuit court’s conclusion that he consented to the pat down. No wonder the court of appeals was “befuddled by this appeal.” (¶6).
{ }
by admin
on November 11, 2020
Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2020AP370, 11/4/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/26/21; case activity
Section 51.20(11)(a) provides that an individual or his counsel must demand a jury trial at least 48 hours before the time set for his final commitment hearing. At the start of his hearing, E.J.W requested a substitution of trial counsel and a jury trial. The court granted the substitution of counsel and postponed the trial 7 days, but it would not reset the clock for demanding a jury. The court of appeal affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 11, 2020
Waukesha County v. L.J.M., 2020AP820, 11/4/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J.M. (“Lisa”) appeals the extension of her commitment under ch. 51. In a thorough opinion, the court of appeals affirms, though not without pointing out deficiencies in the county’s case and the circuit court’s decision. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 11, 2020
Waukesha County v. I.R.T., 2020AP996, 11/4/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity
The county sought to extend I.R.T.’s commitment but could not be located for a time. Eventually the court issued a capias and I.R.T. was arrested. At the extension hearing, there was testimony that after his parole in a criminal matter ended I.R.T. had become homeless and had not taken medications or communicated with the county or his “outpatient prescribers.” (¶14). A psychologist opined that I.R.T. would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn due to his history of noncompliance with treatment and his “history of psychotic symptoms, and threatening behaviors toward others” and referred to information received from “staff” at an unnamed facility and I.R.T.’s parents. (¶16). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 11, 2020
State v. Jack B. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)
If an inmate serving the initial confinement (IC) portion of a bifurcated sentence completes the Substance Abuse Program (SAP), § 302.05(3)(c)2. mandates that the sentencing court “shall” modify the inmate’s sentence by converting the remaining period of IC to extended supervision (ES) so that the inmate is released from confinement to ES. The court of appeals holds this mandate doesn’t apply to an inmate who is serving a mandatory minimum term of IC for an OWI offense if the inmate hasn’t yet served the mandatory minimum term.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 6, 2020
Jackson County v. W.G., 2020AP961, District 4, 11/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at a ch. 51 extension hearing is found wanting because it doesn’t establish dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. [continue reading…]
{ }
