On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

court of appeals publication orders, 10/31/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 110 State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal

2012 WI App 112 State v. Carl Rissley

2012 WI App 113 Scott E. Schmidt

2012 WI App 114 Christopher J. Felton

2012 WI App 117 Chintan V. Patel v. State of Wisconsin

County of Fond du Lac v. Nancy C. Bush, 2012AP1486, District 2, 10/31/12

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

Under the implied consent law, a motorist must, when properly requested to submit to a chemical test, answer “promptly,” State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 205, 289 N.W.2d 828 (1980), else failure to respond will be construed as refusal.

State v. Daniel Buchanan, 2011AP830-CR, District 1, 10/30/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2

The prior-consistent statement rule allows substantive admissibility of an out-of-court statement if: “(1) the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement; (2) the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony; and (3) the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive,” 

State v. Michael C. Christofferson, 2012AP571-CR, District 3, 10/30/12

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

The officer didn’t develop probable cause (for OWI arrest; Christofferson was getting out of his car when the officer first saw him) until after illegal entry of the attached garage, therefore the ensuing arrest was unlawful.

¶10      Under the Fourth Amendment, police are prohibited from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. 

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

State v. Andrew Wheaton, 2012AP173-CR

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI

Presence of the following factors establish reasonable suspicion to stop Wheaton for impaired driving:

¶23      The State points to the following as factors that produced an objectively reasonable suspicion of impaired driving at the time of the stop:  (1) Wheaton was driving at 3:05 a.m.,

State v. Randall Lee Sugden, 2012AP408-CR, District 4, 10/15/12

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

Arrest in Richland County by a Sauk County deputy sheriff was justified under the fresh pursuit doctrine, § 175.40(2). State v. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, 248 Wis. 2d 724, 638 N.W.2d 82, discussed and applied:

¶12      Applying Haynes to the facts of this case,

State v. Jan P. Hogan, 2012AP966-CR, District 4, 10/25/12

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

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car displaying “dealer imitation” plate (i.e., failing to display permanent or temporary plate in violation of § 341.04(1)). State v. Griffin, 183 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1994) (OK to stop car with “license applied for”

State v. Robert J. Jacobson, 2011AP581, District 2/3, 10/24/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; prior history: 2003AP2023-CR (direct appeal), 2005AP1928 (Knight petition)

Jacobson was convicted after jury trial on three counts of attempted homicide. He undertook an unsuccessful direct appeal, followed by a “Knight” habeas petition (the latter arguing that appellate counsel was ineffective in certain respects).

State v. Marilee F. Devries, 2012 WI App 119 (recommended for publication); case activity

Devries’ probation agent, after detecting alcohol on her breath during a visit at the probation office, had a law enforcement officer administer a preliminary breath test. One thing led to another and she was convicted of OWI. She challenges the PBT as a police, rather than probation, search because the probation officer wasn’t involved in the test,

State v. Ronald W. Lichty, 2012 WI App 129(recommended for publication); case activity

Lichty pleaded no contest pursuant to plea bargain which allowed, due to a good-faith mistake, the State to recommend a period of extended supervision that exceeded the permissible maximum by one year. The error was discerned prior to sentencing, where the State reduced its extended supervision recommendation by one year. (His plea was to two counts of the same offense,