On Point blog, page 160 of 485
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.”
Defense win! You don’t have to be a local to be “local traffic”
State v. Brandon M. Swiecichowski, 2016AP1808-CR, 1/25/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Mr. Swiecichowski was pulled over after an officer saw his vehicle driving in a construction area signed as being closed to through traffic. Before pulling him over the officer ran his plates and found the vehicle to be registered to an owner who lived seven or eight miles away from the construction zone.
Retrograde extrapolation survives Daubert challenge—again
State v. Michael Chough, 2016AP406-CR, District 2, 1/25/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Chough’s challenge to the reliability of expert testimony regarding his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving fails under State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687.
2013 amendments to 980 discharge statute apply retroactively
State v. Carter, 2017 WI App 9, petition for review granted 5/15/17; case activity (including briefs)
This case is a companion to State v. Hager, in which the court held that the amended discharge statute does not require a committed person to prove he is not dangerous in order to get a discharge trial.
Defense win: amendment to 980 discharge standard doesn’t authorize “weighing”
State v. David Hager, Jr., 2017 WI App 8, petition for review granted 5/15/17; reversed 4/19/18; case activity (including briefs)
This is the first (likely) published case to construe the 2013 amendments to the ch. 980 discharge petition standard. The court of appeals holds that while the legislature required a committed person seeking a discharge trial to meet a higher burden of production, it did not permit courts to deny a trial based on an assessment that the evidence as a whole favors the state.