by admin
on September 1, 2023
State v. William J. Buffo, 2023AP302 & 2023AP303, 8/31/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This pro se appeal stems from two criminal cases, but the opinion concerns an order from the circuit court that set “parameters for Buffo’s future filings.” In short, the circuit court entered an order that barred Buffo from filing any further motions and required any potentially “legally-valid” postconviction motions to be screened by a “Dane County judge” before any filing from Buffo would be accepted. While noting that it could dismiss Buffo’s arguments on appeal as undeveloped, the court reaches the merits and upholds the circuit court’s order. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 31, 2023
Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the examination is either (1) at the individual’s expense or (2) “if indigent and with approval of the court hearing the petition, at the reasonable expense of the individual’s county of legal residence…” As a matter of first impression, the court of appeals holds that individuals seeking such an evaluation must satisfy an implied and unspecified burden of proof to establish indigency before the individual may obtain an additional examination at county expense. (Op., ¶¶8-9). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 31, 2023
State v. Kale K. Keding, 2022AP1373-CR & 2022AP1374-CR, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an eminently readable and refreshing opinion, COA methodically works through a battery of counterarguments to hold that police could not use statements Keding made after having been asked about a tissue he discarded into a wastebasket while in police custody.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 30, 2023
State v. Roger A. Wolf, Jr., 2022AP1539, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An responding officer encountered Wolf, head bloodied, near a crashed motorcycle and a dead deer. Wolf said he’d been “drinking all day” but that an unidentified third person, not on scene, had been driving the bike when it hit the deer. He argues the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 30, 2023
State v. Michael Ross Straight, 2022AP2012, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A woman identified as “A.B.” got out of her car and approached Straight with a machete. Straight, fearing for his life, grabbed A.B., knocked her to the ground, and took the machete from her. He then straddled A.B. with the point of the machete pointing toward her. A friend on scene yelled at Straight; Straight replied “what are you going to do about it?” Then he got up, dropped the machete, and walked away. A.B. departed in her car with the machete. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 30, 2023
On August 30, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of one criminal law related decision:
State v. Gregory L. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41 (Applying Payton rule to invalidate “Terry stop” inside home)
{ }
by admin
on August 30, 2023
State v. C.D., 2023AP1025, District I, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an exciting defense win, District I signals a willingness to critically review default orders entered in Milwaukee County.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 30, 2023
Marinette County v. A.M.N., 2022AP1395, District III, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Faced with a weak record, COA holds that A.M.N. cleared imposing hurdles to relief and reverses the lower court’s medication order as there was no proof he received a reasonable explanation of the proposed medication. However, despite a hearing rife with inadmissible hearsay, COA upholds the underlying commitment order under a harmless error analysis. [continue reading…]
{ }
