by admin
on April 24, 2022
State v. Bradley C. Burgess, 2021AP1067-CR, District 4, 4/21/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A traffic stop should last only as long as necessary for the police to complete the “mission” of investigating the traffic infraction that justified the stop, including ordinary inquiries incident to the stop. Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348 (2015); State v. Smith, 2018 WI 2, 379 Wis. 2d 86, 905 N.W.2d 353. Applying that standard here, the court of appeals holds the stop of the car Burgess was riding in wasn’t unreasonably extended by the officer’s asking the passengers for identification and running records checks on them. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 24, 2022
Waukesha County v. E.B.V., 2021Ap1910, District 2, 4/20/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the truancy petition filed against E.B.V. because E.B.V. was no longer truant and, after initially contesting the facts of the petition, he entered into a consent decree. J.C.V., one of E.B.V.’s parents, had also filed motions to dismiss the petition, alleging it was untimely, wasn’t legally sufficient, and wasn’t proven. The court denied J.C.V.’s various motions challenging the dismissal on the County’s motion, including one to vacate the dismissal and objecting to the consent decree. J.C.V. appealed, arguing the court should have dismissed the petition based on her arguments instead of the County’s. (¶¶2-10).
Assuming without deciding that J.C.V. has standing to appeal, the court of appeals rejects her arguments. Dismissal is a discretionary decision, and J.C.V. fails to show a legal or factual basis to conclude the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion. (¶¶11-15).
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2022
State v. S.J., 2022AP160, 4/19/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sharon” pled “no contest” to being an unfit parent, and then the circuit court held that it was in “Danielle’s” best interests to terminate Sharon’s parental rights so that Danielle’s paternal aunt could adopt her. Sharon appealed that decision arguing that the circuit court failed to give sufficient consideration to 1 of the 6 “best interests of the child” factors in §48.426(3). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2022
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-Cr, certification filed 4/19/22, District 1; case activity (including briefs)
Whether Milwaukee County’s CR-215 procedure for determining probable cause triggers an accused’s 6th Amendment right to counsel for any subsequent “critical stage” of the legal proceeding?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2022
State v. Garland Dean Barnes, 202AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/15/22; affirmed 6/6/23; case activity (including briefs)
Questions Presented:
Can a defendant open the door to testimonial hearsay violating his confrontation rights, and which was excluded based on an egregious discovery violation, by challenging the quality of the police investigation?
Can the claim that a non-testifying officer witnessed the defendant commit the crime be admitted over hearsay objections under the theory that it is admissible to show the course of investigation, not for the truth of the matter asserted?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2022
State v. Charles W. Richey, petition to review a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)
Question presented:
Whether, at the time of the stop, Officer Meier only had a generalized hunch that Richey’s motorcycle may have been the one that committed a traffic violation.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2022
Rock County v. J.B., 2021AP1157 & 2021AP1883, 4/14/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case history
This is a consolidated appeal of J.B.’s original, six-month commitment and a subsequent nine-month extension of that commitment. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2022
State v. Hajji Y. McReynolds, 2022 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
This decision addresses: 1) the propriety of successive postconviction motions; 2) a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony vouching for the credibility of another witness and to improper character evidence; and 3) the novel issue of the sentencing judge’s use of a written rather than oral explanation of its sentencing rationale under § 973.017(10m)(b). [continue reading…]
{ }
