On Point blog, page 139 of 485
COA: Circuit court didn’t err in deciding record had been reconstructed
State v. Morris Rash, 2016AP2494-CR, District 1, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Morris Rash was convicted of substantial battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial. When it came time for postconviction proceedings and/or an appeal, it turned out that some photographs used as exhibits at the trial were not in the court record.
Probation extension passes due process muster
State v. Daniel E. Olsen, 2017AP918-CR, District 4, 1/25/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
At the request of DOC, the circuit court extended Olsen’s probation by one year and increased his monthly restitution payment. His challenges to the court’s orders fail.
An unconstitutional application of the 5th standard of dangerousness?
Outagamie County v. C.A., 2017AP450, District 3, 1/23/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The records for Chapter 51 cases are confidential, so we have not seen the briefs for this case. But, judging from this court of appeals opinion, it doesn’t take much beyond a mental illness diagnosis to get yourself committed under §51.20(1)(a)2e, Wisconsin’s 5th standard of dangerousness. A little unsubstantiated hearsay about your frustration with the justice system just might do the trick.
There was reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests after “fender bender”
Milwaukee County v. Nicholas O. Moran, 2017AP1047 & 2017AP1048, District 1, 1/23/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to believe Moran was operating while intoxicated, so police were justified in continuing to detain Moran to conduct field sobriety tests.
No erroneous exercise of discretion in TPR
State v. M.D.W., 2017AP1945 & 1946, 1/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.D.W. appeals only the disposition in the TPR of her two children. She argues that the court erred in its consideration of the statutory factors. The court of appeals disagrees.
Officer had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop
Dane County v. Brenna N. Weber, 2017AP1024, District 4, 1/11/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Weber was legitimately stopped for speeding, but argues there was insufficient basis for the officer to extend the traffic stop to conduct field sobriety tests. The court of appeals holds the totality of the circumstances justified the continued detention.
Defense win: Inaccurate advice about consequences of going to trial invalidates plea
State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)
Douglas got inaccurate advice about the prison time he faced if he went to trial instead of taking the State’s plea offer. The inaccurate advice makes his plea invalid.
Once again, FTA leads to TPR
State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.
“Mixed bag” of facts still enough for probable cause to arrest
State v. Terry Sanders, 2017AP636-CR, District 3, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sanders challenges his arrest for OWI, saying the officer lacked probable cause based on a “mixed bag” of facts that included inconclusive field sobriety tests and things an officer “would likely see [being done] by day by sober folks.” (¶9). The court of appeals does not agree.
Indian Child Welfare Act’s special proof requirements don’t apply to parent who never had custody
Kewaunee County DHS v. R.I., 2018 WI App 7; case activity
Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of appeals holds that the additional fact finding mandated in TPR proceedings involving an Indian child don’t apply when the parent never had physical or legal custody of the child.