On Point blog, page 51 of 485
CoA upholds probation condition requiring judge’s permission to live with certain persons
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2022 WI App 38, petition for review granted, 11/16/22, reversed and remanded, 2023 WI 49; case activity (including briefs)
Williams-Holmes was given a bifurcated prison sentence and consecutive probation after being convicted of battery to and false imprisonment of his girlfriend. Because of Williams-Holmes’s history of domestic violence, the circuit court ordered, as a condition of probation and extended supervision, that Williams-Holmes not reside with any member of the opposite sex or any child not related to him by blood “without permission of the Court.” (¶1). Williams-Holmes argues the circuit court’s condition is improper because it results in the court “administering” probation, which is a task reserved for the Department of Corrections. The court of appeals disagrees, holding that the circuit court may impose this condition—though it must implement it using the statutory process for modifying conditions of supervision.
June 2022 publication order
On June 29, 2022, the court of appeals issued its June 2022 publication order. No criminal law related cases were ordered published.
Defense win! State failed to prove dad’s “no contest” plea to grounds was knowing
State v. A.G., 2022AP652, 7/12/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petitions for review granted, 10/11/22, reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity
District 1 means business. Not long ago, it reversed an order denying A.G.’s claim that his no-contest plea to grounds for a TPR was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the circuit court neglected to explain the potential dispositions to him. It remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. There, the State simply presented a transcript showing that 10 months before the plea, the circuit court explained potential dispositions to A.G. The circuit court said the State met its burden. On appeal after remand, the court of appeals says no way!
Lack of follow up after unprotected sex cited as ground for TPR
State v. A.T., 2022AP544, 6/28/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Guys, if you have unprotected sex, call or text your partner after. And “Wisconsin law does not require courts to consider race or culture when determining whether to terminate parental rights.” Opinion, ¶29. Those are the two main takeaways from this TPR opinion.
Exclusion of family therapist’s testimony regarding mom’s fitness okay; TPR affirmed
State v. S.A., 2021AP1917-1919, 7/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The State petitioned to terminate Sarah’s parental rights to her three children because she had failed to assume parental responsibility and her kids were in continuing need of protective services. According to the State, Sarah had trouble controlling her anger and mental health. She left her kids home alone, and she and the children’s father had a history of domestic violence.
Exclusion of evidence didn’t violate defendant’s right to present defense; instruction on self defense adequately instructed the jury
State v. Sergio Moises Ochoa, 2022 WI App 35; case activity (including briefs)
Ochoa, charged with two counts of first degree intentional homicide, claimed self defense. The court of appeals rejects his claims that the circuit court violated his right to present his defense by excluding certain evidence he wanted to present. The court also rejects his claim that the circuit court erred by refusing to modify the pattern jury instruction applicable to his case.
Court of appeals again addresses DOC power to decide how much money to siphon from inmate accounts
State ex rel. DeLorean Bryson v. Kevin Carr, 2022 WI App 34; case activity (including briefs)
A few months ago the court of appeals decided Ortiz v. Carr, holding (with a number of important caveats) that DOC may not take a greater percentage of an inmate’s wages for restitution than the circuit court has ordered–if the circuit court has ordered a specific percentage. Here, the court applies similar logic to obligations other than restitution. It holds that DOC has the authority to set a percentage rate for the crime lab surcharge and the DNA surcharge, but that the circuit court has the authority to set a different rate for collection of court fees. It does not decide who has authority over the victim-witness surcharge, because DOC did not appeal the circuit court’s determination of that question (which was that DOC has the authority to set the percentage, but that its new policy of taking 50 percent violates the administrative rules it earlier promulgated).
Court of Appeals addresses exigency test in Mitchell v. Wisconsin on remand
State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2022 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019), held that when police have probable cause to believe a driver has committed a drunk driving offense and the driver is unconscious or stupefied to a point that requires hospitalization and precludes a breath test, police will be justified in getting a blood test without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception unless the driver can show that; (1) his or her blood wouldn’t have been drawn if police weren’t seeking blood alcohol information; and (2) police didn’t reasonably conclude they had no time to seek a warrant given their other pressing needs or duties. See also State v. Richards, 2020 WI App 48, 393 Wis. 2d 772, 948 N.W.2d 359. Applying that test to Mitchell himself on remand, the court of appeals holds Mitchell hasn’t made the first showing and therefore the warrantless blood draw of him was reasonable.
Sentence after probation revocation may run consecutive to other sentences
State v. Ricky Rodriguez, 2021AP2053-Cr, 6/14/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Rodriguez was convicted of two misdemeanors and placed on probation in early 2017. a few months later, he committed two felonies and was sentenced to prison. His probation for the misdemeanors was revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 months in jail consecutive to any other sentence. In his pro se appeal, he argued that his sentence after revocation cannot, as a matter of law, run consecutive to the sentence for his felonies based on Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 60, 230 N.W.2d 126 (1975). The court of appeals says that it can.
COA rejects defendant’s changed story, affirms probable cause for OWI
State v. Smolarek, 6/16/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Smolarek was involved in a motorcycle accident. After allegedly admitting that he had smoked marijuana much earlier that day, an officer arrested him. A blood test showed that he had been driving under the influence of THC. Smolarek moved to suppress arguing that the officer got his story wrong. He admitted that he had smoked marijuana after the accident. So the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him.