by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. Erik M. Smith, 2016AP2453-CR, District 3, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The body of Eric Volp, a resident of Michigan when he disappeared, was found in a creek in Marinette County. After a long investigation Smith was eventually charged in Marinette County with killing Volp by running over him with his car and then hiding his corpse and he eventually pleaded guilty to most of the charges. (¶¶2-9). But as the criminal complaint itself acknowledged (¶7), the investigation never resolved whether Volp was killed in Marinette County or in Michigan. Despite that uncertainty the court of appeals holds there was sufficient factual basis to establish Wisconsin had territorial jurisdiction.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. Orlando Lloyd Cotton, 2016AP2211-CR, District 1, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Cotton was convicted of being party to the crime of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver and keeping a drug house. He unsuccessfully argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to convict him and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. J.D.V., 2017AP1057, District 3, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.V. (given the pseudonym “Joseph” by the court) was adjudged delinquent for punching Thomas, another juvenile, in the head outside of school. The incident was recorded by Charles, another student, using his electronic device. Based primarily on that recording the trial court rejected Joseph’s self-defense claim—rightly so, says the court of appeals. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. L.M.O., 2017AP1814, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.M.O. argues that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his child D.A.M. He also argues the court’s findings violated his due process rights because they were based on D.A.M.’s out-of-home placement and L.M.O.’s subsequent lack of contact with D.A.M. while a no-contact order was in effect. The court of appeals rejects his claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. L.J., 2017AP2380, 2017AP2381, & 2017AP2382, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J. argues the circuit court terminated her parental rights to her children without properly considering whether her children had a substantial relationship with her or her family members. The court of appeals disagrees. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2018
State v. Amanda L. Longley, 2017AP659-CR, District 4, 2/8/18 (1-judge opinion. ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here answers this questions “no,” based on SCOW’s recent and narrow reading of Padilla in State v. Le Mere, 2016 WI 41, 368 Wis. 2d 624, 879 N.W.2d 580. See Mike Tobin’s post on Le Mere here). But Wisconsin’s case law is conflicting, suggesting that this issue may be worthy of scrutiny by a higher court. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 6, 2018
You can see the arguments for criminal cases in the right side bar. To see all arguments, click here. SCOW only has one day of argument scheduled for May, so if your case isn’t listed for April, there’s a chance it’s getting pushed to the next term when Justice Gableman’s replacement will be on the bench.
{ }
by admin
on February 6, 2018
State v. Dustin R. Willette, 2017AP888, District 3, 2/6/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A police dispatcher informed officer Hughes that a caller saw a man drive into gas station, exit his car, and walk away. Then another officer reported seeing a similarly-dressed man walking down the a road about a mile away. That man was Willette. Officer Hughes picked him up, drove him back to the car at the gas station, performed FSTs, arrested him for OWI, and asked him to submit to a blood test. Willette did not say “yes” or “no.” He said “I want to speak to a lawyer.” Here’s why the circuit court found probable cause to arrest and improper refusal to submit to a blood test. [continue reading…]
{ }
