by admin
on September 30, 2022
State v. Robert J. Baur, 2021AP55, 8/25/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An OWI defendant can attack prior convictions–thus seeking a lower offense number and lower associated penalty–only if he or she lacked counsel in that prior proceeding and did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel. Wisconsin courts have adopted a burden-shifting regime: if a defendant can show that the court in the prior proceeding didn’t do a proper colloquy on the counsel right, the state must then prove that the defendant nevertheless understood the right. But given that priors are often from quite a while ago, it often happens that no transcript of the prior hearing can be produced. What then? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 30, 2022
State v. Jeffrey S. Wein, 2021AP1696-98, 9/7/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publications) case activity (including briefs)
Wein appeals convictions of three civil offenses arising from what the state says was his driving of a pontoon boat while he was drunk. The only issue for each charge is whether he, rather than someone else on the boat, was driving. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 30, 2022
State v. Randaro V. Jones, 2020AP1046, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) 9/7/22, case activity (including briefs)
This is not an OWI case; rather, it’s an appeal from a conviction of recklessly endangering safety by using a firearm while intoxicated. But the blood test that led to this charge came as a result of an arrest for OWI-first, so the issue is whether there was probable cause for that arrest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 30, 2022
Sheboygan County HSD v. P.W.S., 2022AP426, District 2, 9/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this fact-intensive decision (¶¶2-17), the court of appeals rejects P.W.S.’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that there was a substantial probability he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 29, 2022
State v. J.D.C., Jr., 2022AP1028, District 1, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects J.D.C.’s claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding that termination of J.D.C.’s parental rights was in the best interest of his parental rights to C.M.M. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 29, 2022
Brown County DHS v. K.Y.T., 2022AP531, District 3, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The county petitioned to terminate K.Y.T.’s parental rights to M.Z. alleging abandonment for both a 3-month and a 6-month period and failure to assume parental responsibility. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the county proved both grounds. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 28, 2022
State v. Tomas J. Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished opinion granted 9/14/22; case activity (including briefs)
Issue: (adapted from the State’s PFR):
The 5th Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from commenting on defendant’s failure to to the stand. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965); Bies v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 322, 325-26, 193 N.W.2d 46 (1972). In a case where the defendant exercises his right not to testify, does the prosecution violate this prohibition by telling the jury that the victim’s account is “uncontroverted” and no evidence was offered to dispute it?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 28, 2022
State v. Brynton C. Foston, 2022AP387, 9/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer saw Foston driving without headlights between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. and activated his emergency lights. Foston didn’t stop. He accelerated, pulled into his driveway, and stumbled as he tried to reach his back door. The officer started giving commands, and Foston, who had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech became argumentative. There was no dispute that the initial stop for a traffic violation was lawful. Based on the totality of the facts just described, the court of appeals held that the officer also had strong reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate a possible OWI, pursuant to State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 94, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999).
{ }
