by admin
on November 29, 2016
State v. Brian Grandberry, 2016AP173-CR, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/17; affirmed 4/10/18; case activity (including briefs)
Grandberry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after police stopped the car he was driving and found a loaded pistol in the glove compartment. Citing § 167.31, which regulates the transportation of firearms, he argues he was not “carrying” a concealed weapon but was instead “transporting” it under § 167.31(2)(b)(intro.) and 1., which allow handguns to be transported in a car, even when loaded. (¶6). The court of appeals says this argument misses its mark. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2016
State v. Michael Lee Brayson, 2016AP896-CR, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brayson’s girlfriend, L.A.R., is a long-haul trucker. When she goes out on the road he accompanies her and stays with her in the truck, though both maintained separate addresses in Mississippi. (¶¶3-6). Under these facts, Brayson’s convictions for battery of L.A.R. at a Wisconsin travel center were subject to the domestic abuse surcharges and modifiers under §§ 968.075(1)(a)(intro.) and 973.055(1)(a)2. because Brayson and L.A.R. “reside[d]” together in the truck. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2016
Milwaukee County v. M.G.-H., 2016AP596, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at a hearing on whether to continue M.G.-H.’s protective placement was sufficient to show M.G.-H. “has a primary need for residential care and custody” and “is so totally incapable of providing for his or her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(a) and (c). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2016
State v. T.R.D., 2016AP1413, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.R.D. challenges the circuit court’s conclusions that she was an unfit parent and that it was in the best interests of her child for T.R.D.’s parental rights to be terminated. The court of appeals rejects the challenges. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 17, 2016
Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 17, 2016
Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2016
State v. Brenda S. Webster, 2016AP225-CR, District 3, 11/15/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
M.P., the complaining witness at Webster’s trial, for robbery of a grocery store, spoke only Spanish, so she testified through an interpreter. On three occasions the interpreter mistranslated M.P.’s testimony. The court of appeals holds the interpreter’s mistakes, considered individually or together, weren’t sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2016
SCOTUSblog has named a cert petition filed by the Maryland Public Defender “petition of the day“!! Here are the issues:
1. Under the exception to the warrant requirement announced in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009), permitting a vehicular search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle,” what quantum of particularized suspicion is required by the Fourth Amendment to justify the search?
2. May the unquantified experience of the arresting officer, alone, supply the necessary particularized suspicion to justify the vehicular search?
Wisconsin, which has trimmed the Fourth Amendment down to more like a Three and a Half Amendment, follows a per se rule requiring no particularized suspicion. See State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15. Under this rule, a belief is reasonable, and an officer may search a vehicle, when the recent occupant’s offense of arrest is a non-traffic infraction that could generate physical evidence. On Point will keep you posted on this petition.
Here’s hoping our Maryland comrades get their cert petition granted–even (or especially) without an amicus brief! See post below.
[continue reading…]
{ }
