On Point blog, page 128 of 485
Parents’ no-contest pleas to TPR grounds were valid
State v. M.A.H., 2017AP1785 & 2017AP1786, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. K.C.H., 2017AP1787 & 2017AP1788, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.H. and K.C.H. entered no-contest pleas to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petitions to terminate the parental rights to their children. They later challenged those pleas, arguing they weren’t voluntary because they were induced by a promise to allow additional visitation of the children, who were in foster care, pending a disposition hearing if they entered the pleas. Their challenge fails because there was no such promise.
COA says trial court didn’t sentence on improper factors
State v. Dion Lashay Byrd, 2017AP1968, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Byrd was convicted of making a bomb threat to the Fox 6 TV station in Milwaukee. He claims the sentencing court relied on two improper factors in imposing the maximum sentence for this Class I felony. First, he says the court coerced him into making self-incriminating statements during his sentencing allocution–statements that could not be used against him at sentencing under the Fifth Amendment. Second, he contends the court should not have based its sentencing decision on its stated dissatisfaction with the statutory maximum.
COA finds hearsay and right to presence claims forfeited and harmless
State v. Delano Maurice Wade, 2017AP1021, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wade appeals his jury-trial conviction of sexual assault and false imprisonment. He argues that certain of his accuser’s statements, related by police officers on the stand, were hearsay, and that the court erred in addressing a jury question when he was absent.
June 2018 publication list
On June 27, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:
State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36 (“boilerplate” motion to suppress didn’t contain sufficient allegations to merit an evidentiary hearing)
Court of appeals erases line between civil commitments and protective placements
Marathon County v. P.X., 2017AP1497, 6/26/18, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
P.X. is autistic, non-verbal, intellectually and developmentally disabled and has obsessive compulsive disorder and pica. The question is whether he is capable of “rehabilitation,” which would make him a proper subject for treatment on Chapter 51. If not, then he should be placed under Chapter 55. The court of appeals held that even though P.X.’s disabilities cannot be cured and he can never function in society, his OCD and pica could be controlled with medication, so Chapter 51 applies. Under Chapter 51, a person can be committed to a mental institution for years, but Chapter 55 bars protective placement in a unit for the acutely mentally ill. See §55.12(2). This decision seems to let the county accomplish through Chapter 51 what it cannot do through Chapter 55. Let’s hope P.X. petitions SCOW for review.
Defense win! Court of appeals remands ineffective assistance of counsel claims for Machner hearing
State v. Ronald Lee. Gilbert, 2016AP1852-CR, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Congratulations to Quarles & Brady, which took this appeal pro bono, for scoring a defense win! Gilbert, who was convicted trafficking a child and related crimes, argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) challenge the admission of cellular phone data testimony, (2) demand discovery before trial, (3) impeach the State’s star witnesses with prior inconsistent statements, and (4) strike a biased juror. Gilbert further alleged that his trial counsel made improper statements during his closing. The court of appeals granted a Machner hearing on all claims except the one regarding juror bias.
DOC may collect restitution from inmate even after a sentence has expired
State ex rel. Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)
The Department of Corrections has the authority to take certain funds from an inmate’s account to pay the restitution ordered in a case even though the inmate has finished serving the sentence in that case.
Denial of Batson challenge at TPR trial affirmed
State v. R.D.W., Sr., 2018AP351, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There were only 3 black jurors among the 25 on the panel for the grounds trial in this TPR cases. The ADA used peremptory challenges to strike all of them. The ensuing Batson hearing concerned only one–Juror 2. As proof of non-discriminatory intent, the DA filed a copy of her NAACP membership card, showed her Coretta Scott King tattoo, and explained why she struck Juror 2.
Defense win! Police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop male wearing dark clothing in a crime area
State v. Marquis Lakeith Pendelton, 2017AP2081-CR, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A caller reported to police that 2 suspicious males had been looking into cars parked in a church lot at 1:30 a.m, at 68th and Silver Spring in Milwaukee and had just run away. An officer thought that the dispatcher said that one of the males was Black and wearing a dark hoodie.
Defense win on suppression of evidence relating to destroyed blood sample, loss on sanctions against County
County of Milwaukee v. Ross J. Romenesko, 2017AP1042-1044, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge appeal, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Romenesko prevailed below–the circuit court (1) suppressed a revised report relating to his blood sample, (2) precluded but one of its experts from testifying, and eventually (3) dismissed the the OWI 1st offense and operating with a PAC 1st offense charges against him as a sanction against the County. The court of appeals affirmed the suppression decision but reversed the other 2 decisions.