On Point blog, page 329 of 485
Traffic Stop – Lane Violation
State v. Kevin A. Rhyne, No. 2009AP163, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
¶7 “An officer may conduct a traffic stop when he or she has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶13, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569 (citing State v.
TPR – Evidence; Hearsay; Effective assistance
Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti
TPR – Evidence
Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.
State v. Chad W. Voeller, No. 2009AP001596-CR, District II, 7/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Sanction – Appendix
Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, District II, 7/28/10, review granted 10/27/10
certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp.; Reply
Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph
The court of appeals certifies to the supreme court the following question:
Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
SVP Discharge Procedure: Summary Judgment not Supported
State v. Walter Allison, Jr., 2010 WI App 103; for Allison: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Summary judgment in favor of discharge isn’t an available option under § 980.09.
¶18 Applying the principles governing statutory interpretation to Wis. Stat. § 980.09, it is clear that the legislature explicitly prescribed a different procedure from those outlined in Wis.
State v. Elijah Arlanders Brock, No. 2009AP002120-CR, District I, 7/27/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brock: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Statement – Coercion
Threatened action against defendant’s girlfriend didn’t support suppression of his resulting statement:
¶11 Brock argues that Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963), requires suppression of his statement. Lynumn held that threats that a mother’s children would be taken away from her unless she “cooperated” “must be deemed not voluntary,
Judicial Bias – Sentencing after Revocation
State v. James Robert Thomas, No. 2010AP332-CR, District III, 7/27/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The sentencing court exhibited objective bias, requiring resentencing, when it imposed the maximum on sentencing after revocation, given the court’s threat when it placed Thomas on probation to do just that if his probation were revoked.
PLRA – Partial Dismissal as Strike
State ex rel. Titus Henderson v. Raemisch, 2010 WI App 114; pro se; Resp. Br.
Partial dismissal of a prisoner lawsuit doesn’t counts as a “strike” within the meaning of the § 801.02(7)(d) “three-strike” provision of the Wisconsin Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
The PLRA regulates “prisoner” lawsuits. Typically, these relate to conditions of confinement, something the SPD doesn’t provide representation for, but our courts in their infinite wisdom apply the strictures of the PLRA to matters of SPD concern such as cert review of revocations,
Evidence / IAC: Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA; Instruction: Recording Policy Interrogation; Impeachment: Prior Convictions
State v. Tarence A. Banks, 2010 WI App 107; for Banks: Scott D. Obernberger; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA – Ineffective Assistance
Prosecutorial use of Banks’ refusal, after arrest, to provide a warrantless DNA sample penalized him for exercising a constitutional right. Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the issue is raised as ineffective assistance of counsel,
Venue: Instruction, Proof; Obstructing: Proof; Instruction: Recently Stolen Property
State v. Donald L. Schultz, 2010 WI App 124 (decision originally issued 7/20/10, subsequently withdrawn; reissued 8/17/10); for Schultz: Margaret A. Maroney, Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Venue – Instruction
¶12 Although venue is not an element of a crime, it nonetheless must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.