by admin
on August 8, 2017
State v. K.H., 2016AP1180, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
During a lengthy colloquy regarding her “no contest” plea to grounds for terminating parental rights to her son, K.H. “seemed confused.” She said she hadn’t taken all of her prescribed medication. The court was concerned that she “was not able to fully understand the proceedings.” So her lawyer conducted a direct examination to determine her understanding of what she was doing. Eventually, the court was satisfied that she did and found that her plea was freely, voluntarily and intelligently given. Then it proceeded to establish a factual basis for it. On appeal, K.H. contends that (1) her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and (2) the court erred in accepting the plea before the factual basis for it was proven as required by §48.422(7). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 7, 2017
State v. Irvin Perez-Basurto, 2016AP2136, 7/18/2017, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Irvin Perez-Basurto was born in Mexico and brought to the United States by his mother when he was 14. He had been approved by the Homeland Security for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status (he is, in common parlance, a “dreamer”) and was thus permitted to remain in this country. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 7, 2017
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP2483-CR, 7/19/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 11/13/17, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 2018 WI 85; case activity (including briefs)
Patrick Dalton was badly injured in a car crash. He argues on appeal that there was no exigency justifying the warrantless blood draw that revealed his intoxication; he also argues the circuit court erred when it considered his refusal to consent to the blood draw as an aggravating factor for sentencing. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 7, 2017
State v. Tracy Dean Martin, 2017AP296, 7/25/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An anonymous tipster told West Allis police that a man was asleep in a car parked across 4 spots at a Taco Bell. The lot was otherwise fairly empty. A check on the car’s registration revealed that its owner, Martin, had 3 prior OWIs and a .02 alcohol restriction. The officer approached the car, saw the headlights on, the keys in the ignition, and Martin asleep holding a taco in one of his hands. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 7, 2017
State v. Andrei R. Byrd, 2014AP2721-CR, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Byrd was released on bond for 2 felonies that imposed 2 conditions: don’t leave Rock County and don’t commit any new crimes. He went to Illinois, drank too much, and started shouting at a 4th of July party. An officer saw him move toward a woman and raise his hand, causing her to move backward into a defensive posture. He was arrested for assault under Illinois law. Then the State of Wisconsin charged him with 4 counts of felony bail jumping for violating the 2 conditions of the bonds on his 2 felonies (2 x 2 = 4). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 7, 2017
State v. Marnie L. Coutino, 2016AP2386-CR, 7/19/2017, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for pubication); case activity (including briefs)
Marnie Coutino seeks resentencing on the ground that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed a 30-day jail sentence without considering whether probation was appropriate. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2017
We leave you with the most recent petition granted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the stats on SCOW’s 2016-2017 term, plus 5 additional new posts to ponder in our absence. See you in a few weeks!
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2017
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from petition for review):
Whether the doctrine of hot pursuit always justifies a forcible warrantless entry into the residence of one suspected of minor criminal activity. In the present case, the court of appeals declined to consider Mr. Delap’s argument that the conduct of law enforcement in this case, even if justified as legitimate ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect, was nonetheless unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although Mr. Delap’s argument presented a chain of reasoning and citation to legal authority, the court of appeals characterized the argument as ‘undeveloped’ and did not consider it.
[continue reading…]
{ }
