On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Julius Alfonso Coleman, 2013AP2100-CR, 3/21/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Julius Coleman was set up by a confidential informant to participate in an armed robbery of a nonexistent drug dealer named “Poncho.” He challenges the admission of various statements at trial on the ground that they were taken in violation of Miranda. The court of appeals concludes that any error in their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, but along the way (and not for the first time) seems to confuse the test for harmless error with that for sufficiency of the evidence.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; affirmed 4/10/18, case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the safe transport statute, which permits transporting a handgun in a vehicle, forecloses convicting a non-permit-holder under the concealed carry law for having a handgun in his vehicle.
2. Whether the safe transport statute’s apparent contradiction of the concealed carry statute renders the law unconstitutionally vague.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on First Amendment free speech grounds a disorderly charge that was based on Breitzman’s use of foul language toward her son inside their home?
2. Did the court of appeals misapply the standards for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by deferring to the legal conclusions in the circuit court’s postconviction ruling?

State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; 2015AP202-CR, 2/28/2017; case activity (including briefs)

In State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884, the supreme court unanimously held that Wis. Stat. § 974.07, the postconviction DNA testing statute, provides two routes for a convicted defendant seeking exoneration: a defendant satisfying certain basic criteria may pay for his own testing of physical evidence; one making a stronger showing of potential significance may secure such testing at public expense. The court now closes off the first, self-paid route.

State v. Robert Mario Wheeler, 2016AP55-CR, 2/21/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Robert Wheeler was tried for reckless injury and being a felon in possession of a gun arising out of a single shooting incident. To keep the jury from hearing about his status as a felon, the parties stipulated that he was and agreed that the gun possession charge would be decided by the court. Wheeler’s counsel specifically noted the possibility that the two counts could be decided differently, given the different factfinders. (¶5).

Waukesha County v. Kimberly A. Ridl, 2016AP554, 2/15/17, District 2 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects an OWI defendant’s claim that the circuit court could did not have sufficient evidence of her impairment because the judge (it was a bench trial) was unqualified to conclude that her “medication caused her to be affected by alcohol in an atypical way.”

Village of DeForest v. Alexei Strelchenko, 2016AP1814, 2/16/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Just how did Strelchenko misuse his drone? Unfortunately, we do not know. He proceeded pro se and neglected to include a copy of the trial transcript in the appellate record. It is the appellant’s job to ensure that the record is sufficient for the court of appeals to review the issues.

Question presented:

Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases, as held by four other circuits and two state high courts.

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When a police officer performs a lawful traffic stop, is it reasonable for the officer to make contact with the driver to ask for the driver’s name and identification and to explain the basis for the stop, even if the reasonable suspicion supporting the stop has dispelled by the time the officer does so?

2. When an officer is unable to request a driver’s name and identification and explain the basis for a traffic stop because, as in this case, the driver indicates that the driver’s side window and door are both broken, is the officer then permitted to open the passenger’s side door to achieve that goal?

State v. Joshua D. Winberg, 2016AP108-CR, District 3, 1/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver was operating under the influence.