On Point blog, page 309 of 484
Equitable Estoppel: Can’t Bar Prosecution, as Matter of Law
State v. James M. Drown, 2011 WI App 53; for Drown: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
As a matter of law, equitable estoppel doesn’t bar prosecution of a crime. After pleading guilty to Shawano County charges related to an abduction and assault, Drown was charged in Oconto based on the same incident. The trial court granted a defense motion to dismiss on the ground of equitable estoppel,
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011AP613-LV, District 4
Yesterday, the DOJ moved to withdraw its petition for leave to appeal the TRO entered by the Dane County Circuit Court last week. The DOJ argues that the appeal is moot because Act 10 became effective the day after its publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau on March 25th. The court of appeals swiftly denied the motion, explaining: “it appears that we lack the authority to grant the withdrawal motion while our certification is pending and that the Attorney General should have addressed his motion to the Supreme Court.”
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011AP613-LV, District 4, 3/24/11
certification request; case activity
Budget Repair Bill TRO
This case presents several significant issues involving justiciability and the remedies that are available under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 et seq. As we will explain below, we believe that resolution of these questions will require clarification of the interaction between the Open Meetings Law and a line of cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine.
OWI – Statute of Limitations
State v. Bradley A. Faber, 2010AP2325-CR , District 2, 3/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Faber: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶1 The State of Wisconsin appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing the criminal charges against Bradley A. Faber. Faber was issued a pair of citations for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) (First offense) by the City of Delavan in November 2005 and February 2006.
Traffic Stop – Weaving
County of Sheboygan v. John A. Taylor, 2010AP2819, District 2, 3/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Taylor: Kirk B. Obear, Casey J. Hoff; case activity
Weaving within lane supported reasonable suspicion for OWI stop, State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634 (“repeated weaving by a driver within a single lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary for a traffic stop”),
Ch. 51 recommitment – evidence satisfied “if treatment were withdrawn” test
Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.
¶6 As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,
TPR; Interest of Justice Review – Generally
Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity
Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,
Interest of Justice – Shaken Baby Syndrome; Confessions – Voluntariness
State v. Quentin J. Louis, 2009AP2502-CR, District 3, 3/15/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Louis: Edward J. Hunt; amicus, Wis. Innocence Project: Keith A. Findley, Peter Shawn Moreno; case activity
Trial court grant of new trial in interest of justice upheld as proper exercise of discretion: the issue in controversy wasn’t fully and fairly tried, given failure to adduce at trial medical testimony that the deceased baby’s injuries didn’t result from shaken baby syndrome.
Delinquency – Serious Juvenile Offender Program
State v. Emanuel M., 2010AP2175, District 1, 3/15/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emanuel M.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The trial court made the requisite findings for SJOP disposition, § 938.34(4h): the juvenile was at least 14 years old; the adjudication offense(s) qualified under the statute; correctional placement was the only other appropriate disposition (as to which, the trial court’s multiple references to “Wales”
Investigatory Stop – Reasonable Suspicion; Frisk
State v. Loren C. Purintun, 2010AP2493-CR, District 3, 3/15/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Purintun: Dan Chapman; case activity
¶9 Here, the totality of the circumstances provided Hodek with reasonable suspicion to stop Purintun. Hodek was dispatched to a semi-rural area to investigate a report of either a shooting or a car accident. He encountered Purintun about one-half mile from the address provided by dispatch.