by admin
on April 11, 2022
State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, 3/24/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
After Van Linn refused to consent to a blood draw, police ordered one to be taken even though they didn’t have a warrant or exigent circumstances. After the circuit court suppressed the results of the test of this illegal blood draw, the state obtained the same evidence using a subpoena for Van Linn’s medical records. The supreme court holds that, under the “indepedent source” doctrine, the evidence obtained with the subpoena should not be suppressed even though the state sought the subpoena after the suppression of the same evidence obtained with the illegal blood draw. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 11, 2022
Dane County DHS v. A.D., 2022AP76 & 2022AP77, District 4, 3/31/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Another case showing that in TPR proceedings, “egregious” conduct is coming to mean “missing one hearing.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 11, 2022
We recently published a post on the court of appeals decision in State v. Hoyle, No. 2020AP1876-CR, which ordered a new trial for a defendant convicted of child sexual assault (and was recommended for publication). The court held that the state violated Hoyle’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent at trial with its repeated arguments during closing that the alleged victim’s testimony was “uncontroverted” and there was “no evidence disputing her account of the sexual assault.” The state filed a petition for review, to which Hoyle responded. In light of the state’s petition, the court of appeals has withdrawn its opinion. (The case history, including links to the PFR and Hoyle’s response, are available here.) We’ll do a post on the new decision when it’s reissued.
{ }
by admin
on April 8, 2022
Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, our clients may file a claim for damages arising from a violation of their constitutional rights during the criminal justice process. For example, maybe the State violated their 4th Amendment rights or engaged in malicious prosecution. This week, SCOTUS issued a decision clarifying that in order to bring such a claim the client would not have to show “some affirmative indication of innocence.” Rather, client only has to show that their prosecution ended without a conviction. Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s thorough post on Thompson v. Clark.
{ }
by admin
on April 7, 2022
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1466-1467, 4/5/22, District 3 (1-judge appeal, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This case needs a motion for reconsideration. LaFave-LaCrosse, an unemployed student, appealed convictions for OWI 1st and refusal to take a breath test and moved the circuit court for waiver of transcript fees due to his indigency. The circuit court denied his motion, so he appealed that decision. The court of appeals held that the circuit court made an error of law. But then the court of appeals applied the wrong legal standard to affirm. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 7, 2022
State v. E.L.C., 2021AP1624, 4/5/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
In 2016, 13-year-old E.L.C. pled to 4th-degree sexual assault of his 7-year-old sister. The juvenile court deferred the issue of sex offender reporting until E.L.C. had a chance to participate in counseling. Five years later, it ordered him to register as a sex offender based on his conduct during supervision and his failure to fully engage with treatment. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 7, 2022
State v. Michael Lee Muehl, 2021AP1755-CR & 2021AP1758-CR, District 4, 3/31/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court sentenced Muehl to prison and made him eligible for the earned release programs. Turns out Muehl was ineligible for those programs, so he filed a motion to modify his sentence on the grounds that his ineligibility was a “new factor”—that is, a fact highly relevant to the imposition of sentence that was not known to the judge at the time of sentencing because it wasn’t in existence or was unknowingly overlooked. State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶35, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828. (¶¶2-10). Although a defendant’s ineligibility for earned release programming might be a new factor in some cases, it isn’t here because Muehl hasn’t established his ineligibility was “highly relevant” to the sentencing decision.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 7, 2022
State v. Eric Allen Erickson, 2021AP1826-CR, District 4, 3/31/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state appealed a circuit court order granting Erickson’s collateral attack of a prior OWI conviction. Erickson’s response brief argued that the state ignored the relevant facts and relied on irrelevant facts. Erickson also cited authorities that “squarely rebut” authorities relied on by the state. Despite Erickson’s onslaught against its argument, the state didn’t file a reply brief. The court of appeals deems the state’s failure to reply to be a concession of Erickson’s arguments, so the circuit court is affirmed.
{ }
