On Point blog, page 160 of 485
Consent to blood draw was voluntary
State v. Eric M. Doule, 2016AP1146-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The record supports the conclusion that Doule voluntarily consented to a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI.
Threatening letter sufficient to prove dangerousness to others
Dodge County v. J.T., 2016AP613, District 4, 2/9/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The threats J.T. made in a letter provided sufficient evidence to find him dangerous to others under § 51.30(1)(a)2.b.
DOJ agent’s search of computer at probation officer’s request upheld
State v. Richard L. Keller, 2017 WI App 19; case activity (including briefs)
Richard Keller’s probation rules required, among other things, that he neither possess a computer nor commit any crime. When his agent found computers at his house, she took them to Madison and had a Department of Criminal Investigations analyst examine them. Child porn was found and Keller moved for suppression, which the trial court granted. The court of appeals now reverses.
Juror’s glimpse of defendant chained to others wearing jail garb doesn’t warrant new trial
State v. Anthony Colon, 2016AP1071-CR, 2/7/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Colon was on trial for 2 felonies and 3 misdemeanors. During a break in deliberations, the bailiff happened to be transporting Colon to the court room. Colon was wearing street clothes, but he was chained to other defendants who were wearing orange jail garb. Upon learning that some of Colon’s jurors may have seen him that way, defense counsel asked the judge to question the jury, but he did not move for a mistrial.
No error in denying defendant’s request for new counsel and adjournment of trial
State v. Michael Steel, Jr., 2016AP796-CR, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Steel’s requests for a new lawyer and an adjournment on the morning of trial.
Circuit court’s findings about driving not clearly erroneous
State v. Nicholas W. Stern, 2016AP1534, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court implicitly credited the testimony of a police officer that Stern was in the wrong lane of travel as he drove toward the officer, and therefore held the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Stern for violating § 346.05(1). The circuit court’s finding is not clearly erroneous, despite Stern’s claim the officer’s testimony is contradicted by the squad car video, which he says shows Stern maintaining his lane as he approached and passed the officer.
Failing to provide defendant with complete information about Huber eligibility wasn’t ineffective
State v. William J. Drake, II, 2016AP724-CR, District 4, 2/2/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
It may be that Drake’s lawyer could have done a better job of looking into and advising him about the possibility his Huber privileges would be revoked, but that doesn’t mean counsel was ineffective. Thus, Drake doesn’t get to withdraw his pleas.
Terry stop okay based on reasonable suspicion that person has information about a crime
State v. Brianna L. Flahavan, 2016AP1133-CR, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).
Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make–bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake–if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”
—Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy
Trial court’s denial of counsel affirmed due to “sketchy” record
State v. Elbe, 2016AP2012-2013, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The Elbes were charged with disorderly conduct back in 1996. They requested the appointment of counsel, but the trial court found that they were not indigent. This caused them to plead no contest. Twenty years later they moved to vacate their convictions arguing that the 1996 decision violated their 6th Amendment right to counsel. They lost in the trial court and in the court of appeals.
Home detention counts as “confined in a correctional institution” under § 940.225(2)(h)
State v. Jeff C. Hilgers, 2017 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)
Hilgers, a correctional officer at a county jail, had sex with an inmate while she was on home detention. He was properly convicted of second degree sexual assault under § 940.225(2)(h), which prohibits a correctional officer from having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with “an individual who is confined in a correctional institution.”