On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Tanya Lynn Schmit, 2017AP871-CR, District 3, 7/31/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schmit was charged with OWI. She told her trial lawyer there were two witnesses who would support her defense that she wasn’t the driver, but trial counsel didn’t interview the witnesses or call them at trial. Trial counsel’s failure constitutes deficient performance and the deficiency was prejudicial.

State v. Terry Terrell Anderson, 2017AP2165-CR, District 1, 7/31/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Anderson sought pretrial custody credit against sentences that were ordered to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. Because the time in custody was credited to the previously imposed sentence, he’s not entitled to the same credit against the later-imposed consecutive sentences.

State v. Devon L. Loggins, 2017AP2045-CR, 7/31/18, District 1 (unpublished); case activity (including briefs)

A fight between the Loggins and Jones families escalated into a violent melee involving at least 20 people. Some of them were punching Loggins, who saw a gun fall from one participant’s hoodie. He picked it up. Someone kicked him, and he started shooting. Two people died. Others were injured. At trial, Loggins sought a self-defense instruction, but the circuit court wouldn’t give it.

Rock County v. B.A.G., 2018AP782, 7/26/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

B.A.G. challenged a court order to commit and medicate him under §51.20(1)(a)2e (the 5th standard). His main objection appears to be that being undressed outside in cold weather was insufficient evidence to commit him. The court of appeals does not articulate the challenge he lodged against the medication order. Regardless, he lost on both issues. However, the court of appeals opinion on the medication order suggests a possible defect in the statute.

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2017AP850-CR, District 4, 7/26/18, certification granted 9/4/2018, affirmed 2019 WI 25; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide a question involving the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine. Under this doctrine, testimonial statements, which would otherwise be barred under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment if the declarant does not appear at trial, may be admitted nonetheless if the reason the declarant does not appear is the result of wrongdoing by the defendant. In the typical case, this doctrine is applied when a defendant prevents a witness from testifying at the proceeding at which the State seeks to admit the out-of-court statement. ….

The question we certify today is whether the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine applies at a homicide trial where the declarant is the homicide victim, but where the defendant killed the declarant to prevent him or her from testifying at a separate proceeding. ….

An additional and closely related question we certify is whether preventing the declarant from testifying must be the defendant’s primary purpose for the wrongful act that prevented the declarant from testifying in that separate proceeding.

On July 25, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Theoris Raphel Stewart, 2018 WI App 41 (identity theft statute, § 943.203, applied to defendant’s forgery of documents he submitted at sentencing hearing)

Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44 (DOC may collect restitution from an inmate even after expiration of sentence to which restitution order was connected)

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2017AP1609, 7/26/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

We last saw Singh attempting, and failing, to get his long-ago second-offense OWI dismissed by a writ of coram nobis. After that, he went back to court arguing that the count should be dismissed because of  Wis. Stat. § 345.52 (which says that a judgment in a traffic ordinance action bars state proceedings for the same violation) and Wis. Stat. § 973.17 (which says excessive sentences are void).

State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46; case activity (including briefs)

In light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s May 2018 decisions in State v. Muldrow, 2018 WI 52, 381 Wis. 2d 492, 912 N.W.2d 74, and State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373, the court of appeals now holds:

State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2018 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)

Egerson told the trial court that his lawyer was “totally deficient” and declared a “total breakdown in communication.” The trial court agreed to let Egerson have a new lawyer, but as the parties and the court discussed logistics, he said: “let me represent myself and have co-counsel.” When that was ignored, Egerson said: “let me represent myself and have no counsel.” The court of appeals holds that this was not clear and unequivocal request to go pro se. Thus, the trial court had no duty to conduct the colloquy required by State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). If Egerson’s words don’t satisfy the test, what words would? Perhaps SCOW will tell us.

State v. Demario D. Fleming, 2017AP1851-CR, District 1, 7/17/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Applying its recent decision in State v. Piggue, 2016 WI App 13, 366 Wis. 2d 605, 875 N.W.2d 663, the court of appeals rejects Fleming’s request for sentence credit for time he spent in custody on charges that were dismissed, but not read in, as part of a plea agreement.