On Point blog, page 32 of 118
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.
Challenges to armed robbery conviction and sentence rejected, but sentence credit granted
State v. Sean N. Jones, 2018AP948-CR, District 3, 8/20/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jones makes various challenges to his conviction and sentence for being to party to the crime of armed robbery. The court of appeals rejects all of his claims except the last one, involving sentence credit.
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.
Second attempt to challenge 1995 license revocation fails, too
State v. Robert E. Hammersley, 2018AP1022, District 3, 7/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including appellant’s brief)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), doesn’t provide a basis to void the revocation of Hammersley’s driver’s license back in 1995 for refusing a blood alcohol test after his OWI 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,
“Written notice of appeal” of muni court judgment needn’t be “Notice of Appeal” form
City of Milwaukee v. David B. Munzinger, 2018AP2186, 7/23/2019, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Munzinger fought his OWI citation in the municipal court and lost; he filed an appeal to the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 800.14. To do this, his counsel filed a form in the circuit court captioned “Notice of Appeal” (probably this one, provided by the municipal court). He also emailed the city attorney alerting him to the appeal and apparently spoke to him about it. But, his email didn’t include a copy of the “Notice of Appeal” form. The city moved to dismiss and the circuit court granted the motion.
SCOW will review the petitioner’s burden on dangerousness in ch. 51 cases
Marathon County v. D.K., 2017AP2217, petition for review granted 7/10/19; affirmed 2/4/2020; case activity
As our prior post noted, the court of appeals upheld D.K. (or “Donald”)’s commitment against his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The supreme court has now agreed to decide whether the testimony of the examining physician, who was the sole witness at D.K.’s trial, supplied enough for the court to find by “clear and convincing evidence” a “substantial probability” that D.K. was dangerous.
SCOTUS to decide whether defendant must challenge length of his sentence to preserve the issue for appeal
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, USSC No. 18-7739, cert granted 5/30/19
Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
SCOW rejects challenges to JI-140
State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2019 WI 59, May 31, 2019, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Trammell challenged Wis. JI—Criminal 140, Wisconsin’s standard instruction on the burden of proof in a criminal case, arguing it dilutes the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His primary challenge was to the directives that “[w]hile it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt. You are to search for truth.” The court rejects Trammell’s arguments, though two concurring justices ask the Criminal Jury Instruction Committee to consider whether the instruction should be modified because it lacks an explanation of the quantum of proof required.
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.