On Point

State v. Kurt Daniel Schmidt, 2010AP1104-CR, District 3, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating § 947.012(1)(c). The second of two calls anonymously made by Schmidt in a matter of minutes to his wife during a pending divorce with custody in dispute,

State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.

Appellate Procedure – Sanction

Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion.  Yet, as required by rule,

State v. Devon A. Sheriff, 2009AP3095-CR, District 1, 11/16/10 

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.

Sheriff, convicted at jury trial of participating in drug sale, unsuccessfully appeals trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence codefendant’s statements.

¶12      We conclude that the statements that Sheriff sought to admit were properly excluded because they were irrelevant.

State v. Jason W. Kucik, 2009AP933-CR, District 1, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Kucik: Thomas J. Nitschke; Resp. Br.; Reply; Kucik Supp. Br.; State’s Supp. Br.

Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory than Posited Below

¶31      We agree with the State that it is appropriate for us to consider the alternate basis to affirm the trial court that the State raised for the first time at oral argument. 

Docket

Decision below (CTA 11)

Question Presented  (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)

Whether conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) (murder with intent to prevent a person from communicating information about federal offense to federal law enforcement officer or judge) requires proof of an ongoing or imminent federal investigation.

Scotusblog page

No immediately apparent implications for state practice in this grant.

Dismissed as improvidently granted, 3/29/11

Docket

Decision below (New York Court of Appeals)

Question Presented (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)

Whether someone’s driving record is suppressible as the fruit of an illegal stop or arrest.

Scotusblog

A mere 6 days ago, Mr. Badger raised an alert on the core of this issue:

United States v.

Legal Ethics; or: Lawyers Behaving Badly

First amendment rights for lawyers?

• Attorney’s taunts – “he called a police officer a ‘punk’ and ‘dirty cop,’ and told another he hopes the officer gets ‘shot in a drug house in Detroit’” – land him before disciplinary board.
• Violation of gag order, to provide public airing of client’s side,

State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held  sufficiently reliable to support stop:

¶12      We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case.  The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,

Search & Seizure

• State v. Fredricks, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1293 (11/3/10) (loud argument in motel room insufficient, without more, to justify warrantless entry into room under emergency aid doctrine)
• United States v. Gross, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21478 (6th Cir. 10/19/10) (discovery of valid arrest warrant didn’t dissipate taint of illegal stop: “We …

Wilson v. Corcoran, USSC No. 10-91, 11/8/10, vacating and remanding habeas grant in, Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 593 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2010)

Mere violation of state law doesn’t support habeas relief, violation of federal law being required.

But it is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts.