by admin
on July 11, 2017
State v. A.S.F., 2016AP2076, and State v. V.C., Jr., 2016AP2077, both District 1, 7/11/17 (one-judge decisions ineligible for publication); case activity: A.S.F.; V.C.
In this pair of decisions addressing the termination of the parental rights of both parents of J.T.C., the court of appeals rejects the parents’ claim that it was error to allow J.T.C.’s adoptive parent to testify that she would allow contact between the child and members of his biological family if the court terminated the parents’ rights. The court also rejects V.C.’s argument that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence from A.S.F.’s trial to “prove up” the factual basis for V.C.’s no-contest plea to the petition. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 11, 2017
State v. K.P., 2017AP612 & 613, 7/11/2017 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
K.P. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. He argues that the circuit court erred in striking his contest posture and finding him unfit after he failed to show up for the scheduled jury trial on his parental fitness. [continue reading…]
{ }
Mike Tobin guest posts on State v. Lewis O. Floyd, Jr., 2017 WI 78, 7/7/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 371 Wis. 2d 404; case activity (including briefs)
The majority opinion affirms the rulings of the lower courts that the defendant voluntarily consented to a frisk of his person following a traffic stop. The majority reached its decision without discussing the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion of criminal activity-an issue emphasized in the dissenting opinion and previously analyzed by the court of appeals. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2017 WI 73, 7/6/17, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP1261-CR; case activity (including briefs)
By obtaining a driver’s license or operating a vehicle in Wisconsin do we automatically give the government consent to draw our blood without a warrant? A nose count reveals the answer remains “maybe.” [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Kenneth M. Asboth, Jr., 2017 WI 76, 7/6/2017, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
This case presented an issue that has divided federal and state appellate courts: does Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987), permit “community caretaker”-type vehicle impoundments only when the police act accord to “standard criteria”? The majority in this case joins the “no” camp; the dissent says the majority has “buck[ed] the nationwide trend” and expanded the community caretaker doctrine into a “pretext to engage in unconstitutional searches” for evidence of crime. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2017 WI 74, 7/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
A few years ago the legislature set out to create a graduated penalty scheme for operating after revocation offenses, but it bungled the job and ended up creating misdemeanor and felony penalties for the offense of causing death while knowingly operating after revocation. The supreme court rebuffs Villamil’s claims that under the rule of lenity only the misdemeanor penalty can be imposed or, in the alternative, that creating two very different penalties for the same crime violates due process and equal protection. The court agrees with his request for resentencing, however, because the circuit court failed to consider the statutorily mandated sentencing factors. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Jesse Steven Poehlman, 2016AP1074, 7/5/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Poehlman with various counts relating to two alleged incidents of sexual assault and battery of his wife–one in December 2014 and one in February 2015. The jury acquitted as to the earlier incident and convicted as to the latter. The court of appeals rejects his arguments that he must receive a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Marcus L. Pantoja, 2016AP1289, 7/05/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police raided the apartment where Pantoja was living with his girlfriend; he claims on appeal that there was neither probable cause for the warrant nor reasonable suspicion of danger justifying its no-knock authorization, which turned up drugs and guns. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
