On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Defense win: Defects in plea colloquy require plea withdrawal
State v. Caroline J. Arndt, 2022AP450-CR, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Arndt pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, but the circuit court’s plea colloquy was defective in two crucial ways, so on the merits—and because the state declined to file a brief in the court of appeals—she’s entitled to withdraw her plea.
State’s failure to address defendant-respondent’s arguments is taken as a concession
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,
Not egregious….yet
State v. Santiago B. Rios, 2020AP2132-CR, was slated to be decided today, but it wasn’t. Instead, the court of appeals issued an order directing the state (represented here by the district attorney’s office) to file a respondent’s brief.
Defense win! COA affirms suppression due to State’s failure to refute the basis for the circuit court’s ruling
State v. Catherine Cuskey Large, 2019AP1966-CR, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals correctly affirmed the circuit court’s decision to suppress OWI evidence in this case, where an officer admitted that the New Glarus Police Department’s “protocol” was to administer PBTs on motorists whether they had probable cause for OWI or not. But court of appeals did so by taking a heavy-handed approach to waiver, a rule of administration that appellate courts have the discretion to apply or not.
Court of appeals declares pro se appeal frivolous and orders sanctions
Village of McFarland v. Dale R. Meyer, 2018AP2130, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Harsh! That’s best description for this court of appeals decision sanctioning Meyer for his pro se appeal of his first OWI. The decision runs afoul of Amek Bin- Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 335 N.W. 384 (1983) and Howell v. Denomie, 2005 WI 81, 282 Wis. 2d 130, 698 N.W.2d 62. Hopefully, a lawyer will take Meyer’s appeal, file a petition for review, and at least get the frivolous finding reversed.
Court of appeals rejects pro se litigant’s appeal of conviction for obstructing an officer
State v. Dale Andrejczak, 2019AP285, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including response brief only)
Talk about disparate treatment. In a considered, respectful ruling against a different pro se appellant, the court of appeals here affirms a conviction for obstructing an officer out of deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations.
No record, no record citations, no legal argument, no chance on appeal
State v. Tracy E. McCarthy, 2018AP484, District 2, 2/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McCarthy’s pro se appeal in his disorderly conduct case fails on multiple grounds. His brief doesn’t cite to the record and the record doesn’t include any transcripts. He doesn’t develop any legal arguments in support of his claims about the alleged errors at trial. Moreover, there wasn’t a trial: he entered a plea to an ordinance violation.
State’s failure to file a brief leads to (partial) defense win
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2017AP1609, 7/26/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
We last saw Singh attempting, and failing, to get his long-ago second-offense OWI dismissed by a writ of coram nobis. After that, he went back to court arguing that the count should be dismissed because of Wis. Stat. § 345.52 (which says that a judgment in a traffic ordinance action bars state proceedings for the same violation) and Wis. Stat. § 973.17 (which says excessive sentences are void).
Violation of Uniform Law on Close Pursuit doesn’t merit suppression
State v. Anthony H. Garbacz, Jr., 2017AP1419, 5/3/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A Prairie du Chien police officer saw Garbacz driving erratically and tried to stop him. Garbacz didn’t stop, instead heading over the bridge to Iowa with the officer in pursuit. Some Iowa squads joined the chase and eventually Garbacz was arrested. He was not, however, taken before a judge in Iowa to determine the legality of the arrest–he was taken back to Wisconsin and charged with OWI. That’s a violation of Iowa’s Uniform Law on Close Pursuit, and Garbacz argues evidence derived from his arrest must thus be suppressed.
Court of appeals highlights flaw in Chapter 54 jury instruction; denies relief anyway
Sauk County v. R.M.C., 2017AP1860, May 3, 2018, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity
To appoint a guardian of the person or estate, the circuit court has to find 4 elements by clear and convincing evidence. This appeal focuses on §54.10(3)(a)2–the second element, which states:
[B]ecause of an impairment, the individual is unable effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual is unable to meet the essential requirements for his or her physical health and safety. WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(a)2.