On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Larry D. Wright, 2012AP1175-CR, District 1, 5/7/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in instructing the jury by giving Wis. J.I.-Criminal 172 (evidence of defendant’s conduct showing consciousness of guilt), as it was supported by evidence that Wright bribed the complaining witness to write two letters recanting her allegations. (She testified at trial the recantations were untrue). 

State v. Edward Devon Smart, 2012AP1178-CR, District 1, 5/7/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Smart is not entitled to plea withdrawal based on co-actor’s testimony that he coerced Smart to commit the crime because the coercion evidence could have been presented using other witnesses known to defendant before he entered his plea:

¶7        Smart argues that Rushing’s testimony is new because he did not know Rushing would testify that he forced Smart to rob the victims.  

State v. Nely B. Robles, 2013 WI App 76; case activity.

Issue:  When accepting a guilty plea is the circuit court required to specify whether the defendant is pleading to a felony or a misdemeanor?

Robles sought to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that the circuit court’s failure to specify the designation of the charged crime violated Wis. Stats.  § 971.08(1)(a)’s requirement that she be informed of the “nature of the charge.”  

State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2013 WI App 63, petition for review granted, affirmed, 2014 WI 27; case activity

The plain language of § 973.015 requires the circuit court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the defendant’s conviction can be expunged on successful completion of the sentence:

 ¶9        Matasek is correct that Wis.

City of Oshkosh v. Ernest D. Lehl, 2012AP2717, District 2, 4/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop and request Lehl to perform field sobriety tests because there were specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted the intrusion of the extended stop. State v. Post,

State v. Danny F. Anton, 2012AP1165-CR, District 2, 4/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel

In a fact-specific discussion that precludes summary here, the court of appeals holds Anton’s trial attorney was not ineffective for: failing to object to testimony about telephone calls between Anton and a detective, as the evidence was not prejudicial (¶¶10-13);

State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity

The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine:

¶37      …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering the apartment, addressing the apparent domestic situation, and making a reasonable assessment of the need for any further assistance or protection,

State v. Kenneth F. Johnston, 2012AP2427-CR, District 3, 4/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The search of Johnston’s car was supported by probable cause to believe there were open intoxicants in the car:

¶17      In this case, before [Officer] Wojcik searched the vehicle for open intoxicants, Wojcik smelled the odor of intoxicants emanating from the driver-side door.  Wojcik knew, based on Johnston’s preliminary breath test,

State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2013 WI App 74, petition for review granted 11/21/13; reversed, 2014 WI 64, 7/15/14; case activity

Wisconsin Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)6. makes OWI 7th, 8th, or 9th a Class G felony, but also provides that “[t]he confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence imposed on the person under s. 973.01 shall be not less than 3 years.”

State v. James D. Hills, 2012AP1901-CR, District 4, 4/11/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Hills sent letters and made at least one phone call to an assistant city attorney (ACA) who, he believed, had wrongfully prosecuted him under the city’s disorderly conduct ordinance. In those communications he berated the ACA (calling her incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, deceitful, worthless, and worse), accused her of prosecuting him with perjured testimony so she could collect money for the city,