On Point: 1. Appeals

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.

On December 22, 2016, SCOW issued Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99 concerning a tax appeal. Justice Abrahamson filed a dissent which, among other things, sought to inform litigants and lawyers about a procedure the justices us when deciding petitions for review by email. This is what she wrote:

E.C. v. Susan Krueger, 2015AP2196, 12/13/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

E.C., an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s, planned for her future while she was still competent. She named her son, G.C., as her power of attorney for finances and health care. After she became incompetent, her family began fighting about her care. Krueger, E.C.’s daughter, filed a Ch. 54 guardianship proceeding. The issue in this case is whether Chapter 54 can trump a person’s advance planning.

State v. A.W., 2016AP121 through 125, 12/8/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

When A.W. did not appear for her pretrial and was not reachable by phone, the court entered a default finding as to grounds for a TPR. She moved to vacate that finding, but then withdrew her motion. On appeal, she argued that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for advising her to withdraw the motion to vacate, and (2) the circuit court should have vacated the default so that she could address false information admitted in her case. The court of appeals refused to address the 2nd argument for reasons that penalized A.W. for mistakes her appellate lawyer allegedly made.

State v. Isiah O. Smith, 2015AP1645-CR, 11/15/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Two guys walk into an apartment complex and leave a short time later. One carried a gun and a cell phone; the other a cell phone. They got into a car belonging to a friend of the guy carrying only the cell phone and drove off. A surveillance video captured these movements but not the  shooting death that occurred in the complex at about the same time. Was there sufficient evidence to convict the guy holding just the cell phone of 2nd degree reckless homicide as a party to a crime? 

City of Appleton v. Jacob Anthony Vandenberg, 2015AP2649, District 3, 11/8/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Because he entered a plea to OWI, first offense, Vandenberg forfeited his arguments that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him for operating while intoxicated or hit-and-run under § 346.69, and the court of appeals declines to disregard the guilty-plea-waiver rule.

State v. F.B., 2016AP497, 11/1/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

F.B. seeks reversal of the circuit court’s denial of a permanent stay of his obligation to register. No briefs are available and it is difficult to tell what his argument might have been; in any case the court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion.