On Point blog, page 232 of 483
Arrest under § 968.075 doesn’t preclude issuance of citation under municipal ordinance
City of Lancaster v. Todd A. Chojnowski & Eric T. Chojnowski, 2013AP1593 & 2013AP1594, District 4, 2/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1593; 2013AP1594
Arrest under § 968.075, the mandatory arrest law for domestic abuse offenses, doesn’t preclude a charge under city disorderly conduct statute. While § 968.085(8) prohibits the issuance of a “citation” to a person arrested under § 968.075,
Court appropriately considered sec. 48.426 adoptability factors before ordering TPR
State v. Shymika S.W., 2013AP2415, District 1, 2/4/14 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity
Issue: Whether, in terminating Shymika S.W.’s parental rights to her daughter, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by ignoring § 48.426(3)’s “adoptability factors?” Those factors are found in § 48.426(3)(a) and (f), and they require consideration of the likelihood of the child’s adoption after termination and whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of termination,
Trial court didn’t improperly restrict voir dire of 6-person jury in traffic forfeiture case
Washington County v. Joseph Harvey Bingen, 2013AP1171, District 2, 2/5/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion by denying Bingen’s request for additional voir dire of prospective jurors for his first-offense OWI trial. In particular, Bingen was not able to ask if any jurors had been the victims of or convicted of drunk driving.
Sec. 973.015 expunction denied based on new, court-imposed deadline and filing requirements
State v. Kearney Hemp, 2014 WI App 34, petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed 2014 WI 129; case activity
Every so often there’s an opinion that makes you shake your head in disbelief. This is one of them.
Hemp was convicted with 1 count of possession with intent to deliver THC, aka hemp. A court granted conditional jail time,
Defendant can’t withdraw plea based on claim he wasn’t informed of the domestic abuse modifier, but there was no basis to assess the domestic abuse surcharge
State v. Ryan P. O’Boyle, 2013AP1004-CR, District 1, 2/4/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
O’Boyle’ claimed his lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to strike the references in the complaint to “domestic abuse” because that isn’t a separate, stand-alone charge. He also claimed counsel failed to explain that the disorderly conduct count to which O’Boyle entered a plea was charged as an act of domestic abuse under § 968.075(1)(a).
Admission of other-acts evidence wasn’t error; trial court properly denied mistrial motion
State v. Timothy A. Jago, 2013AP1084-CR, District 1, 2/4/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move in limine to exclude other-acts evidence–specifically, evidence that Jago told the victim he has only pointed a gun at two people in his life, the victim and the man he killed in Illinois. (¶¶4, 16, 19). Jago’s trial lawyer reasonably relied on an agreement with the prosecutor to keep this statement out of evidence.
Evidentiary hearing on post-disposition motion in contempt case deemed waste of time once sentence is served
State v. Mark Peterson, 2013AP1398, 1/29/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); docket
After Peterson served a 120-day jail term imposed for failing to meet the conditions required to purge a contempt finding, he moved for an evidentiary hearing. His goal was to show that serious errors had occurred at the hearing where the court ordered him to jail. The court of appeals found that since Peterson had already served his sentence,
Boater in canal lock wasn’t seized when officer on the lock wall engaged him in conversation
State v. Javier Teniente, 2013AP799-CR, District 4, 1/30/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Teniente was on his boat in the chamber of Madison’s Tenney Locks waiting for the water to rise. Piqued by Teniente’s boisterous behavior, an officer standing on the wall of the lock engaged Teniente in conversation. (¶¶3-4, 15). This interaction wasn’t a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes;
Ignition interlock must be ordered in first offense OWI when defendant has prior offense outside the 10 year counting period
Village of Grafton v. Eric L. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23; case activity
“The issue presented is straightforward: Must a court order the installation of an ignition interlock device when a defendant is convicted of first-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) and also has a prior conviction for an OWI offense? The answer is yes.” (¶1).
Seatz was arrested for OWI. His blood alcohol content was .13.
Court of appeals orders trial court to explain its restitution decision (again)
State v. Thomas G. Felski, 2013AP1796-CR, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
For a second time the court of appeals reverses a restitution order and remands the case for the circuit court to explain how it arrived at the restitution figure.
Felski was convicted of performing home improvement services without a contract. In his first appeal, the court of appeals upheld the determination that Felski was liable for restitution,