On Point blog, page 90 of 485
Global sentence under the max was neither unduly harsh nor unconscionable
State v. Paris Markese Chambers, 2019AP17-18-CR, 5/12/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged 17 year old Chambers with 8 crimes involving car theft, damage to property, and bail jumping across two cases. His maximum sentence exposure was 29.5 years and a $75,000 fine. The trial court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years of initial confinement and 13.5 years extended supervision. On appeal Chambers argued that his global sentence was harsh and unconscionable.
COA rejects claim that court terminated parental rights due to father’s learning disability
State v. J.W., 2020AP161, 5/12/20, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of his TPR proceeding J.W. stipulated to the “failure to assume parental responsibility” reason for terminating his parental rights. On appeal he argued that at the trial court erroneously determined that he was unlikely to meet the conditions of return due to a learning disability.
Amendment to continuing CHIPS TPR grounds applies to CHIPS orders issued before amendment
Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2020 WI App 39, petition to review granted, 10/21/20, affirmed, 2021 WI 56; case activity
Following up on the decision issued in Dane County DHS v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5, the court of appeals rejects some additional challenges to the changes 2017 Wis. Act 256 made to the continuing CHIPS ground for terminating parental rights.
Yet another challenge to applying the change in continuing CHIPS grounds to pre-amendment cases
Brown County DHS v. H.P., 2019AP1324 & 2019AP1325, District 3, 5/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case involves another challenge to the application of the new version of § 48.415(2)(a)3. in cases where the CHIPS order was entered before the effective date of the amendments. As in Dane County DHS v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5, and Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, slip op. recommended for publication (WI App May 13, 2020), the court of appeals rejects the challenges.
Detention of juvenile to investigate car crash didn’t amount to custody requiring Miranda warnings
State v. D.R.C., 2019AP1155, District 2, 5/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police detained, initially handcuffed, patted down, and then questioned D.R.C. about his involvement in a car crash from which he had fled. The court of appeals holds the officers’ actions were part of an investigatory Terry stop and didn’t amount to custody requiring that D.R.C. be given Miranda warnings before being questioned.
Witness’s blurted comment during testimony did not warrant mistrial
State v. Kieuta Z, Perry, 2019AP270-CR, 5/12/20, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Perry with armed robbery and 1st degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon both as a party to a crime, along with possession of a firearm by a felon. During cross-exam a witness blurted out “Didn’t [Perry] shoot somebody in the head before he shot me? That’s what I heard.” Defense counsel moved to strike and then later for a mistrial.
Defense win: No probable cause for PBT request
State v. Jeffrey I. Quitko, 2019AP200-CR, District 3, 5/12/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Quitko’s motion to suppress evidence obtained following his traffic stop for speeding violation should have been granted because law enforcement lacked probable cause to request that he submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT).
Motion to adjourn a probable cause hearing is a “preliminary contested matter” under judicial substitution statute
State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2020 WI App 33; case activity (including briefs).
Section 801.58(1) states that if a party to a civil action files a judicial substitution request “preceding the hearing of any preliminary contested matter” and not later than 60 days after service of the summons and complaint then the request must be granted. A “preliminary contested matter” refers to a “substantive issue” going to”the merits of the case.” The court of appeals holds that a motion to adjourn a probable cause hearing in a Chapter 980 case fits that bill.
Claim for ineffective cross-examination of retrograde extrapolation expert fails
State v. Gary R. Schumacher, 2019AP1261-CR, District 4, 5/7/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schumacher was convicted of OWI with a prohibited alcohol content in connection with an accident at 8:45 p.m. His blood was drawn at 10:56 p.m., and tests showed a BAC of .171, well above his legal limit of 0.08. The sole issue on appeal was whether Schumacher’s trial counsel had adequately cross-examined Kristin Drewieck, a chemist with the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene about her estimates of Schumacher’s BAC at 8:45 p.m.
Defense win: Equitable tolling doesn’t apply to statute of limitation for filing forfeiture action
Town of Waterford v. Christopher Pye, 2019AP737, 5/6/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects the municipality’s argument that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the two-year statute of limitation for bringing a forfeiture action.