On Point blog, page 11 of 51
State adequately proved that bar parking lot was a “premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles”
State v. David A. Schultz, 2022AP1622, 2/13/24, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Schultz’s technical challenge to this OWI conviction fails, as COA finds sufficient evidence that the bar parking lot in which Schultz operated his motor vehicle was covered by the OWI statute.
Sufficient inferential evidence of impaired driving supported OWI conviction
City of Watertown v. Andrew D. Wiest, 2023AP992, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Wiest faults the City for failing to prove that he operated his motor vehicle while intoxicated, COA is satisfied there was sufficient circumstantial proof and affirms.
COA rejects ineffectiveness claim and challenge to denial of request for new counsel in TPR appeal
Columbia County DH&HS v. S.A.J., 2023AP1884, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a lengthy opinion notable for its treatise-like treatment of the issues, COA rejects S.A.J.’s challenges to her TPR order.
D3 affirms denial of plea withdrawal claim under Cross’ “higher, but not substantially higher” rule
State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity
Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross.
Defense Win! Court properly dismissed juvenile case with prejudice due to State’s blown deadline
State v. M.D.B., Jr., 2023AP620, 2/6/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The State’s efforts to revive this delinquency case on appeal fail, as they are unable to persuade COA that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to comply with a statutory deadline.
COA upholds traffic stop based on broken taillight
State v. Kevin A. Terry, 2023AP1053-CR, 1/31/24, District II (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In yet another “broken taillight” OWI, COA holds that the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Terry based on a relatively minor vehicle malfunction.
COA affirms 51 extension order in fact-intensive opinion
Winnebago County v. D.S., 2023AP1484, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent appeal, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court’s findings adequate to uphold this 51 extension order.
COA rejects challenges to sufficiency of evidence for 51 extension, involuntary med order
Winnebago County v. T.M.G., 2023AP681, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite T.M.G.’s challenges, COA affirms this extension and related medication order applying what it believes to be well-settled precedent.
COA holds that defendant’s misunderstanding about guilty plea waiver rule does not entitle him to plea withdrawal
State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Given the state of the postconviction record and COA’s narrow reading of precedent, Mayotte fails to establish he is entitled to plea withdrawal given his misunderstanding of the consequences of his Alford plea.
COA rejects novel discovery claim and other challenges to child pornography conviction
State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, 2022AP2051, 1/11/24, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Although Beyer labors mightily at conjuring up legal arguments for reversal, COA is uniformly unpersuaded and unimpressed by his arguments and affirms.