On Point blog, page 131 of 485
“Boilerplate” motion to suppress did not contain sufficient allegations to merit an evidentiary hearing
State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to challenge officer’s credibility at suppression hearing
State v. Royce O. Bernard, 2017AP2162-CR, District 1, 5/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After being charged with carrying a concealed weapon, Bernard challenged the Terry stop that led to the charge. His suppression motion was denied. Postconviction he argued trial counsel was ineffective because he failed in various ways to undermine the credibility of the officer who stopped Bernard. The court of appeals holds Bernard’s postconviction motion failed to allege sufficient facts to get a Machner hearing.
Court of appeals construes owner’s defense to hit and run liability under § 346.675(4)(b)2.
City of Eau Claire v. Debora Ann West, 2017AP1527, District 3, 5/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Section 346.675 provides that the owner of a vehicle is liable for a hit-and-run violation that his or her vehicle is involved in, regardless of whether the owner is operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, but also subject to certain defenses. One of the defenses, § 346.675(4)(b)2., allows the owner to avoid liability by providing the name and address of the person operating the vehicle at the time of the violation along with other information sufficient to provide probable cause that the owner wasn’t operating at the time of the violation. Contrary to the circuit court’s conclusion, the evidence in this case wasn’t sufficient to conclude that West established that defense.
Warrantless, forced blood draw was reasonable
State v. Keith A. Wall, 2017AP2367-CR, District 4, 5/17/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wall sought the suppression of the results of the test of his blood, which showed he had a BAC of 0.178 after his arrest for OWI. He argues the blood was seized unlawfully because police didn’t have a warrant and they used excessive force to draw the blood. The court of appeals rejects both claims.
Evidence defendant shot a gun at prior incident was admissible
State v. Terrell Dawon Essex, 2017AP1509-CR, District 1, 5/15/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Essex was on trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm and first degree reckless homicide of a man named Dotson by use of a dangerous weapon. The circuit court allowed the state to present evidence that on a prior occasion Essex used the same firearm involved in Dotson’s shooting. The court of appeals holds the evidence was admissible.
Must other states’ court orders mean what they say?
State v. Benjamin R. Tibbs, 2017AP2408-CR, District 4, 5/10/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Why, no; no, they don’t.
Defense win: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop car that turned around in wayside
Fond du Lac County v. Isaac Anthony Dahlke, 2017AP1417, District 2, 5/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The stop of Dahlke’s car was unlawful because the officer didn’t have an objectively reasonable belief that Dahlke entered a wayside in violation of an ordinance prescribing hours when the wayside is closed.
Challenge to collection of old fine fails
State v. Eric W. Poirier, 2017AP931-CR, District 3, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Back in 2003, Poirier was fined $1,184 for an OWI conviction. He didn’t pay, so a judgment was entered against him. In 2017 the circuit court entered an order assigning income from his prison account to pay the judgment. He objects to the assignment order, but to no avail, due in large part to missteps common to pro se litigants.
Evidence was sufficient to prove dangerousness under ch. 51
Milwaukee County v. I.K., 2017AP1425, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The County proved I.K. was dangerous under both § 51.20(1)(a)2.d., by showing there was a substantial probability I.K. would suffer physical harm resulting from his inability to satisfy basic needs due to mental illness, and § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., by showing that, after being advised of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting treatment, I.K. was unable to understand and make an informed choice regarding treatment and that a lack of treatment will result in further disability or deterioration.
It’s like déjà vu all over again: Challenges to TPR rejected
State v. A.E., 2017AP1773 & 2017AP1774, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is the third TPR opinion in a week addressing challenges to the denial of a postjudgment fact-finding hearing under § 809.107(6)(am) and a constitutional challenge to the application of the failure to assume parental responsibility standard to a parent whose children have been removed from the home under a CHIPS order. As with the other two cases, the court of appeals rejects the challenges.