On Point blog, page 154 of 487
Totality of circumstances justified investigative detention
State v. Sara Ann Ponfil, 2016AP2059-CR, 5/31/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A police officer discovered cocaine after he detained Ponfil, who, as the officer approached, got out of one of two vehicles parked next to each other outside a bar. The court of appeals concludes that, considered together, the bar’s status as a “high-crime area,” the behavior of the vehicles’ occupants, and the presence of a known gang member in the other vehicle provided reasonable suspicion to believe she was engaged in illegal conduct.
Fines and forfeitures affirmed due to defendant’s failure to carry burden or proof
State v. Paul A. Adams, 2016AP1149, 5/31/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Adams, an inmate, objected to the garnishment of his prison wages to pay fines and forfeitures assessed in various traffic and OWI cases. The court of appeals rejected all of his claims because Adams, the moving party, bore the burden of proof but failed to offer any evidence that the amounts assessed were incorrect.
Is a defendant’s out-of-court criticism of the judge free speech or contempt of court?
State v. William A. Wisth, 2016AP1481-CR, 5/24/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After Wisth, acting pro se, and the State picked a jury for his criminal case, the judge instructed the jurors “not to discuss the case with anyone.” The next day before trial, Wisch appeared by the public entrance to the courthouse with a sign and a stack of flyers that, in short, said “don’t trust Judge Malloy or Ozaukee County.” He tried to hand a flyer to a woman walking by, but she shook her head. She did not see what the sign or the flyers said. Turns out she was a juror. Uh oh.
Defendant made prima facie showing of invalid waiver of counsel in prior OWI case
State v. Scot Alan Krueger, 2016AP2438-CR, 5/25/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court erred in holding Krueger failed to make a prima facie showing that he didn’t validly waive the right to counsel in a prior OWI conviction.
Cost of beefing up security system was a proper item for restitution
State v. Shaun R. Ezrow, 2016AP1611-CR, 5/25/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The cost a business incurred in enhancing its security system after an employee stole money was a proper item of restitution under § 973.20.
Too mentally ill to grasp the advantages and disadvanages of treatment, but well enough to waive the 5th Amendment?
Crawford County v. E.K., 2016AP2063, 5/18/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This case presents multiple SCOW-worthy issues. One is an interesting constitutional dilemma. The County sought to extend E.K.’s commitment and involuntary medication order and, as evidence, offered threatening emails that E.K. had allegedly sent. Defense counsel objected because the emails had not been authenticated. So the County called E.K. to the stand to authenticate them. Defense counsel objected on 5th Amendment grounds. This prompted E.K. to say: “I’ll waive that. Yes, those are my emails.”
Court of appeals rejects challenges to motorboat implied consent citation
State v. Donald G. Verkuylen, 2016AP2364, 5/18/2017, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Verkuylen pled to refusing a blood draw contrary to the motorboat implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 30.684. He raises several arguments about the statutorily required warnings, but the court of appeals finds them all either meritless or forfeited.
Statutory amendment altering elements did not invalidate plea
State v. Richard J. Scott, 2017 WI App 40; case activity (including briefs)
Richard Scott seeks to withdraw his pleas to one count of repeated sexual assault of the same child and one count of possessing child pornography. As to the sexual assault count, he was charged under the wrong statute–a prior version. As to the child pornography, he argues that the complaint lacked a factual basis for the plea. The court of appeals rejects both challenges.
Court of appeals asks SCOW again: Does warrantless blood draw of unconscious motorist violate the 4th Amendment?
State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; District 2, 5/17/17, certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issue: Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.
Local governments can intervene in ch. 980 supervised release proceedings
State v. Michael McGee, 2017 WI App 39; case activity (including briefs)
This is an important decision for the few, the happy few, who represent persons committed under ch. 980 in seeking supervised release. The court of appeals holds that the municipalities in which a committed person may be placed have the right to intervene in supervised release proceeding. It also holds that if the circuit court and Department of Health Services fail to adhere strictly to the statutory requirements governing supervised release planning, the supervised release order is invalid.