County of Milwaukee v. Christann Spannraft, 2018AP1553 & 1554, 6/23/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
This is a pro se appeal of an OWI-1st conviction. Spannraft raises three claims, all of which are rejected. [continue reading…]
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2018AP1952, petition for review of a summary court of appeals order granted 6/16/20; affirmed 3/18/21; case activity
Usually we do to the issues presented first. Here, they’re pretty insubstantial, so let’s just say what’s going on: the supreme court has intervened to (potentially) save a manifestly unconstitutional (and you don’t have to take our word for it) homicide conviction and life sentence in a notorious case. [continue reading…]
Winnebago County v. S.H., 2020 WI App 46; case activity
The court of appeals rarely publishes opinions in “fast track” cases. It took that unusual step here. The opinion strives to show the type of evidence that is sufficient for a recommitment even though the mentally ill person has taken all of her medication and has maintained stable housing and employment for two years. [continue reading…]
State v. Nathaniel Lee Mattson, 2019AP201-CR, 6/16/20, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Mattson pled guilty to domestic battery and disorderly conduct and moved to withdraw his pleas after sentencing. Argued that he did not realize that the decision as to whether accept a plea or go to trial was exclusively his. And during the colloquy the circuit court did not inform him of that fact. [continue reading…]
Fond du Lac v. S.N.W., 2019AP2073, 6/17/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
We detect the unmistakable odor of SCOW bait. One of two court appointed medical experts failed to submit his examiner’s report within 48 hours before the final hearing for an original commitment of a prisoner. S.N.W. argued that this violation deprived the circuit court of competence to adjudicate the case. Alternatively, if the court retained competency, the report had to be excluded. The court of appeals disagreed. Who needs expert reports 48 before trial? Not defense lawyers striving to defend their clients’s rights. They can just wing it. This decision is at odds with several unpublished opinions and thus sets up a good petition for review. [continue reading…]
State v. Alfonzo C. Loayza, 2018AP2066-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 6/16/20; case activity
Issue (from the State’s petition for review):
It is well established that a DOT record is competent proof of a defendant’s prior conviction and can therefore be used to enhance the defendant’s sentence. It is also well established that a defendant may challenge the existence of a conviction listed on a DOT record. But currently, there is no accepted procedure for how a defendant should challenge the existence of a conviction listed in a DOT record and what burden he must satisfy to make a DOT record so unreliable that it no longer qualifies as competent proof of the conviction.
Do the lack of a judgment of conviction for a prior offense and other documents that “support the inference” that the conviction does not exist render a Wisconsin DOT driving record that lists the conviction so unreliable that it is no longer competent proof of the conviction? [continue reading…]
State v. K.L.G., 2019AP658, District 1, 6/16/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
What a bummer. K.L.G. moved to suppress an officer’s identification of him made after she looked up his booking photo from a previous incidence. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed. The State appealed, and the court of appeals reverses. [continue reading…]
State v. Michelle Greenwood, 2019AP248, 6/9/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Greenwood was pulled over for going 81 when the speed limit was 70. The officer testified her eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that her pupils were quite dilated, and did not constrict quickly when he shined his flashlight on them. Per the court of appeals, this was good enough to continue to detain her after the speeding was addressed in order to investigate suspected marijuana intoxication. [continue reading…]
