On Point blog, page 22 of 50
Serial Litigation Bar and No-Merit Procedure
State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶4 We conclude, following Wis. Stat. § 974.06, that a defendant is not required to file a response to a no-merit report. This means he is not required to raise issues in response to a no-merit report.
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84
Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2008 WI App 131; for Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch,SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedent
¶2 Dearborn maintains, and the State concedes, that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
Warrantless Entry – Consent – Attenuation of Taint
State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge the taint of the illegal entry.
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶2 The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the officers corroborated three of the four details relayed by an anonymous informant,
Community Caretaker – Warrantless Entry
State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that “two individuals …
State v. Joshua M. Franzen, 2010AP129-CR, District II, 7/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Franzen: Timothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Suppression Hearing – Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing
Suppression hearing isn’t required on motion which challenged probable cause to administer PBT but failed to specify the relief sought.
¶6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.30 deals with the required form of motions and pleadings in criminal matters,
Appeal from expired original commitment dismissed as moot
Manitowoc Co. HSD v. Tammy L.C., No. 2010AP118, District II, 7/14/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tammy L.C.: Matthew S. Pinix
Mootness – Discharge from Civil Commitment
Appeal of commitment order is dismissed as moot where appellant has been discharged and no extension sought.
Mootness raises a question of policy, not jurisdiction, and the court dismissed the appeal only after satisfying itself that the underlying issue isn’t recurrent but,
Traffic Stop – OWI
State v. Brittany A. Meye, No. 2010AP336-CR, District II, 7/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Meye: Kevin G. Keane; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶6 Meye argues that the odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. We agree. We will not cite, chapter and verse, all the many cases in this state where either we or our supreme court found facts sufficient for an investigatory stop.
Sentence Credit – Concurrent Sentence, Foreign Jurisdiction
State v. Patrick C. Carter, 2010 WI 77, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 255; for Carter: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Carter is entitled to sentence credit for time spent in custody in Illinois following his arrest on an outstanding Wisconsin warrant along with an Illinois charge, given that the resultant sentences were concurrent.
Five different opinions, 238 paragraphs spread out over 116 pages (pdf file),
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78
¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.
A less obscure problem than you might think.