On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Lavonte M. Price, 2014AP1189-CR, District 1, 2/13/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs

This decision examines the line between a trial court’s active participation in the plea negotiation process, which Wisconsin law prohibits, and trial court’s comments, suggestions and lectures, which are permitted under Wisconsin law.  What the trial court did here was just fine, said the court of appeals.

State v. Michael W. Crute, 2015 WI App 15; case activity

An administrative rule (§ Adm 2.14(2)(vm)(intro.) and 5.) requires a permit for any rally, meeting, or similar event held in a state building, and persons participating in an unpermitted event can be ticketed for “unlawful assembly.” But the rule did not contain a minimum group size, so it covered unpermitted events undertaken by as few as one person. The court of appeals holds the rule is not a valid time, place, and manner regulation under the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. It also rejects the state’s attempt to save the rule by construing it to apply only to groups over 20 persons.

State . Michelle M., 2014ap1539, District 1; 1/27/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this TPR case, a circuit court instructed a jury using the version of WIS JI-Children 346 that allows consideration of whether a mother has exposed her child to a hazardous living environment. The court should have given the prior version, which did not mention this consideration. According to the court of appeals, the jury could consider the point whether the instruction explicitly mentioned it or not.

State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the officer. (¶¶5-7, 14).

State v. Andre Bridges, 2013AP350-CR, district 2; 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

If any doubt remained, rest assured that if police have probable cause to believe there are drugs in your apartment, pound on your door, yell “Milwaukee police” and then hear sounds of movement, they may bust down your door and conduct a “protective sweep.”

Outagamie County v. Lori D., 2014AP1911, District 3, 1/27/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was sufficient evidence to commit Lori under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. because her behavior over one night showed a “pattern of recent acts or omissions” that evidenced impaired judgment and because the lack of services available in the community established a “substantial probability of physical impairment or injury” to Lori if she wasn’t committed.

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2013AP1615-CR, District 1, 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Gonzalez-Villarreal’s challenge to his conviction for possessing child pornography based on claims that: his right to a speedy trial was violated; discovery restrictions violated his right to equal protection; other acts evidence was erroneously admitted; the trial court rejected his modified jury instruction on possession; the court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion.

State v. Robert J. Tisland, 2012AP1570-CR, District 4, 1/22/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Even if two legislative acts made inconsistent changes to a criminal statute and meant the changes made by the earlier act were superseded by the later one, a charge filed under the provisions of the superseded act was not, under the circumstances of this case, a charge for a crime unknown to law that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction or competency; instead, it was a technical charging error that didn’t prejudice the defendant.

State v. Melisa Valadez, 2014AP678, 2014AP679, 2014AP680; District 2, 1/21/15, certification granted 3/16/15; circuit court reversed 1/29/16; case activity

Issue presented (from certification):

How definite or imminent must deportation be in order for it to be “likely,” such that a defendant may withdraw a guilty or no contest plea on the basis that he or she was not informed of the immigration consequences at the plea colloquy?  If, in order to withdraw the plea, the defendant must show that deportation proceedings are underway, how does this standard fit in with the time limits for a motion to withdraw the plea?

County of Calumet v. Lisa L. Dolajeck, 2014AP2100, District 2, 1/21/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals here affirms a decision denying a motion to dismiss OWI charges and a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. It holds that the sheriff in this case had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, and nothing requires law enforcement officers to record a stop even if they have  video cameras in their squad cars.