by admin
on July 23, 2020
State v. Antonio L. Simmons, 2018AP591-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Twenty years ago Simmons was convicted of three counts of recklessly endangering safety for shooting into a car carrying three people, one of whom Simmons had been fighting with in a bar shortly before the shooting. The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of Simmons’s request under § 974.07 for DNA testing of physical evidence found in the car he was supposedly in at the time of the shooting. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 22, 2020
In a case that may bear on the potential use of videoconferencing at criminal trials as the COVID-19 pandemic grinds on, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in State v. Dennis Lee Seale, invalidated a trial court’s order allowing the prosecution’s out-of-state witnesses to testify using teleconferencing technology. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 22, 2020
State v. Michael Thomas Martell, 2019AP927-CR, District 3, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer located and started following Martell’s SUV after getting dispatchers relayed a tip describing a vehicle driving erratically. What the officer saw provided reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 22, 2020
State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 20, 2020
State v. Yancy Kevin Dieter, 2020 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)
Dieter called 911 at about 6 in the morning and reported that he’d crashed his car after drinking at a bar. The crash happened about four hours before Dieter made the call; he was badly injured and the car’s other occupant was killed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 20, 2020
State v. M.A., 2019AP1089, 7/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.’s son J.A. was the subject of several delinquency petitions; each was converted to a JIPS proceeding because J.A. was not competent. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). Eventually, M.A. filed a CHIPS petition in an apparent attempt to alter the constellation of services available to J.A. The state fought the petition and lost, and continued its fight on appeal. Per the court, though the state alleges five different errors, they all generally boil down to the same argument–that M.A. didn’t identify any particular services a CHIPS finding would provide that were not already available to her. The court rejects all five flavors of the state’s complaint and affirms the circuit court’s grant of the petition. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 20, 2020
State v. Donnie Gene Richards, 2020 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs)
Richards was found lapsing in and out of consciousness and severely injured behind the wheel of a crashed vehicle. There was evidence he was intoxicated, and he would soon be transported to a distant hospital by helicopter. Believing there wasn’t enough time to get a warrant by this time, the officer on scene requested that Richards’s blood be drawn before the flight, and it was. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 20, 2020
State v. Desmond Myers LaPean, 2019AP1448, 7/14/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
LaPean pleaded to a sexual assault of a child with an agreement that the state would cap its recommendation at 10 years of initial confinement and 10 of extended supervision. But at sentencing, the state first recommended 12 and 12. After defense counsel’s objection, the state instead requested 10 and 14. Counsel didn’t notice the second breach, but the prosecutor eventually did, telling the court the agreement was for 10 and 10. The court gave 12 and 10. [continue reading…]
{ }
