On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals certification; case activity

When deciding a defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing under Wis. Stat. § 974.07, must the circuit court presume that the DNA testing results will be exculpatory and then assess whether such presumed exculpatory results would lead to a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted?

The issue here turns on the meaning of § 974.07(7)(a)2.

State v. Taylor M.S., 2013AP1337, District 2, 10/2/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to waive jurisdiction over Taylor’s charges, rejecting Taylor’s contention that the court failed to consider all of the factors in § 938.18(5), in particular the availability of treatment and services as required by § 938.18(5)(c):

¶6        We agree with the State that the circuit court sufficiently addressed the adequacy and availability of services.

Ozaukee County DHS v. Callen D.M., 2013AP1157, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Callen D.M. was not entitled to an instruction about the impossibility of meeting the conditions of a CHIPS order due to her incarceration, a TPR defense recognized in Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845:

¶13      The facts in Callen’s case stand in stark contrast to those in Jodie W.

Manitowoc County v. Ryan A. Spatchek, 2013AP986, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

An anonymous call to police dispatch said Spatchek was operating while intoxicated and that the caller was concerned for his safety and provided verifiable information as to Spatchek’s location  that was later confirmed by a deputy who subsequently found and followed Spatchek and made independent observations of his impaired driving (crossing the fog line approximately three times in one mile;

State v. Alejandro Rodriguez, 2013AP695-CR, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for deciding not to call Rodriguez’s girlfriend as a witness. Counsel advised Rodriguez he thought it was not in Rodriguez’s interests to have her testify because her recantations made her credibility suspect, she refused to talk to counsel before trial, and Rodriguez had a no-contact order pertaining to her,

State v. Jace H., 2012AP2479, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The state petitioned to waive Jace H. into adult court in two delinquency cases involving allegations of sexual assault of two different victims. (¶¶2-4). After the circuit court granted the waiver petition, Jace’s new lawyer determined–and the state conceded–the allegations in one of the cases occurred before Jace turned 15, a fact that precludes waiver under § 938.18(1)(c) (juvenile court may waiver jurisdiction over juvenile alleged to have violated a criminal law on or after his 15th birthday).

State v. Ali Mursal, 2013 WI App 125; case activity

Before accepting a defendant’s guilty or no contest plea the court is required to advise the defendant there may be immigration consequences. Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). While that statute prescribes a text for the required warning—complete with quotation marks—the court of appeals holds in this case that a judge’s failure to repeat that language verbatim is not by itself grounds for plea withdrawal.

State v. Roberta W., 2013AP936, District 1, 9/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that Roberta W. had failed to meet the conditions for the return of two of her other children under a CHIPS order in a different county because that evidence was relevant under La Crosse County Dept. of Human Servs.

City of Stevens Point v. Katrina L. Shurpit, Appeal No. 2013AP538, 9/26/13; (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Shurpit challenged the investigative stop that led to her convictions for operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content and while under the influence of an intoxicant.  A hit-and-run had a occurred in the vicinity a few minutes before her stop.  The dispatcher told the arresting officer that the car involved was gray or green.

State v. Deris Huley, 2013AP682, 9/26/13 (1-judge ineligible for publication); case activity

It’s not often the court of appeals rules against the State.

 Huley pled no contest to a misdemeanor hit and run of an attended vehicle, as a repeater. See §346.74(5)(a).  The State sought restitution in the amount of $4,064.83 for the victim’s personal injuries.  Noting that “restitution is the rule and not the exception” and that “the victim need only show that the defendant’s actions were the precipitating cause of the injury and that [the injury] was the natural consequence of the actions,” the court of appeals nevertheless affirmed the denial of restitution.