On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Daniel Ryan Curry, 2012AP515-CR, District 1, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Newly discovered evidence

Defendant not entitled to new trial based on potentially exculpatory testimony of two witnesses, because the witnesses were known to him before trial. The two witnesses were the son and nephew of a defense witness named Rivera. Statements made by Curry and Rivera and contained in police reports,

State v. Melvin Pugh, 2013 WI App 12; case activity

Two officers on patrol saw Pugh near two cars parked next to a vacant, boarded-up building posted with a “no parking” sign. This caused the officers to question Pugh—legitimately—about his possible illegal parking, but during that questioning the police also started asking about a nearby drug house and ended up physically seizing Pugh by grabbing his wrists when he slowly backed away.

court of appeals publication orders, 12/19/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 133 State v. Gary M. Hemmingway

2012 WI App 134 State v. Shawn David Schulpius

2012 WI App 136 State v. Joshua A. Prescott

2012 WI App 137 State v. Thomas E. Schmidt

2012 WI App 138 State v. Tony J.

State v. Justin L. Garrett, Case No. 12AP1341-CR, District 2, 12/19/12

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Garrett failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was defective, so his motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing:

¶10      Garrett argues that he did not understand the meaning of the specific elements of the charge of fourth-degree sexual assault: sexual contact and consent.  

State v. Mark A. Sanders, 2013 WI App 4; case activity

Search incident to arrest — area within arrestee’s “immediate control”

Search of bed in room from which defendant emerged just before being arrested upheld under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which permits an arresting officer to search the person arrested and the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control” in order to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime and protect officers’ safety.

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12

 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:

¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,

State v. Dylan T.W., 2012AP1761-FT, District 2, 12/12/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support delinquency adjudication for felony battery where juvenile pushed a whiteboard into a teacher and then injured the same teacher by forcefully opening a door in the teacher’s path. Arguments the juvenile was not aware of the consequences of his actions because he was “singularly focused on leaving the classroom” and that there was conflicting evidence of the event,

State v. Mark A. Gierczak, 2012AP965-CR, District 4, 12/13/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

For purposes of obstructing an officer § 946.41, “officer” includes someone with authority “to take another into custody,” and therefore includes a correctional officer at a county jail, ¶¶11-12. The court of appeals thus rejects Gierczak’s challenge to the factual basis for his obstructing plea where as a county jail inmate,

State v. David J. Galarowicz, 2012AP933-CR, District 3, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

Galarowicz was not denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict on one count of disorderly conduct where the evidence showed an incident of disorderly conduct with the victim in the residence and additional conduct with the same victim in the residence after a twenty-minute pause. 

State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity

Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that the in-court identification was tainted because the photo array was unduly suggestive.