On Point blog, page 6 of 23
Court of appeals finds factual basis for plea to contempt
State v. Kody K. Johnson, 2019AP1058-CR, District 4, 1/9/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Johnson accepted a negotiated disposition of 3 contempt charges stemming from his interference with child custody. He then moved to withdraw his plea arguing that the charges had no factual basis and were multiplicitous.
SCOW holds defendants abandoned by counsel to same standards as licensed lawyers
State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2019 WI 106, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
In the most absurd decision this term (still time for worse), SCOW has denied a defendant sentenced to life without parole both a direct appeal and a new trial because the court system destroyed all of his trial transcripts. The defendant “sat on his rights,” said the majority opinion, written by Justice Ziegler. When his lawyer failed to file a timely notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief, he should have immediately, without counsel, figured out how to defend his appeal rights and effectively defended them. He didn’t. No relief.
COA affirms postconviction court’s reconstruction of the record, denies Brady violations
State v. Scott L. Nutting, 2017AP2049, 10/2/19, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At Nutting’s trial for sexual assault of a child, the State played parts of an audio recording of his custodial interview, but court and counsel neglected to make a record of them. Some would have been highly prejudicial to Nutting, so he requested a new trial. The court of appeals held that the postconviction court, the DA and defense counsel were able to reconstruct the record sufficiently to give Nutting a meaningful appeal. It also denied Nutting’s claims for Brady violations.
Defense win! COA says no community caretaker search where no good reason to think anybody was hurt
State v. Troy K. Kettlewell, 2018AP926, 9/18/2019, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a very fact-intensive OWI case and the court is to be commended for really critically examining what all these facts add up to: not much. As in, not much reason to think Kettlewell was in any danger, so no good reason to go into his house without a warrant.
COA upholds admission of prior confrontations with police in disorderly conduct trial
State v. Eric L. Vanremortel, 2018AP417, 9/4/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vanremortel was charged with disorderly conduct for an incident in which he followed the wife of a retired police officer in her car, then repeatedly got out of his own car and shouted at her. The state sought to admit evidence of three prior incidents involving Vanremortel following and/or shouting at police officers, including one that happened a few weeks before the charged conduct and involved the wife’s retired-officer husband. The circuit court admitted the evidence, finding it satisfied the test of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998), and Vanremortel appeals.
COA finds reasonable suspicion for drug investigation, FSTs; probable cause for arrest
County of Dunn v. Cashe L. Newville, 2018AP1167, 8/6/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Newville was pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy who observed that, among other things, his license plate lamps weren’t working. An arrest on suspicion of operating under the influence of methamphetamine followed. The court of appeals blesses every step in the investigation that led to that arrest.
Ludicrous is not the same thing as absurd
State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)
It’s a crime in Wisconsin to have sex with a person under 18. Specifically, it’s a misdemeanor, if that person is 16 or older—like the 17-and-a-half-year-old alleged victim here. But, it’s tough to have sex without (1) being in a private (or “secluded”) place and (2) exposing one’s genitals. And while the legislature has codified the obvious difference between having sex with,
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.
SCOW to decide whether defendant who is denied all transcripts for appeal gets a new trial
State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
Where no transcripts of a jury trial occurring over 20 years ago are available in a direct appeal and appellate counsel is new to the case, does application of State v. Perry’s requirement that appellant assert a “facially valid claim of error” that might be supported by a portion of a missing transcript deny the constitutional right to meaningful appellate review?
Whether a statement on transcript filed in an appeal binds an appellant in all future appeals in the same case?