On Point blog, page 90 of 484
Partial win gets defendant evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claim
State v. Quaid Q. Belk, 2019AP982-CR, District 1, 4/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Belk moved for a new trial based on multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, but the court of appeals sends the case back for a hearing on one of the claims.
Defendant’s banishment from Amish area held constitutional
State v. Brandin L. McConochie, 2019AP2149-CR, District 2, 4/22/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McConochie pulled his vehicle alongside Amish buggies and exposed his genitals to the occupants within. He pled no contest to 3 counts of lewd and lascivious behavior as a repeater. As a condition of probation, the court banished him a delineated area where Amish live. McConochie argued that banishment violated his constitutional right to travel.
COA eases burden of proof for mutilation of corpse
State v. Mister N.P. Bratchett, 2018AP2305-CR, 4/22/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Bratchett was convicted of mutilating a corpse under §940.11(1), which requires proof that: (1) the defendant mutilated a corpse, and (2) he did so with intent to conceal a crime. On appeal, Bratchett argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the second element. Part of the problem was that State never specified the crime to be concealed.
Court of Appeals addresses a couple of common sentence credit issues
State v. Wyatt William Kontny, 2020 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)
You’d think all the sentence credit issues would’ve been settled by now, but it’s not so! This case settles two of them.
State concedes lack of consent to search; COA affirms anyway
State v. Katelyn Marie Leach, 2019AP1830-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
Leach pled “no contest” to 2nd offense operating a motor vehicle with a restricted substance. She moved to suppress evidence that she gave an officer after he told her that (a) if she only had paraphernalia or a small amount of marijuana she would just receive a municipal citation, and (b) he was going to search her regardless.
COA affirms denial of reconsideration, rejects constitutional challenge to refusal statute
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2018AP2412-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Singh appealed an OWI second, which the court of appeals summarily reversed and remanded with an order for the circuit court to provide the relief due under §971.13–voiding any penalty in excess of the statutory maximum. On remand, the circuit court did as ordered, Singh moved for reconsideration asking the circuit court to vacate the judgment of conviction, vacate his plea, and dismiss the case. Motion denied. Decision affirmed.
Partial defense win on 4th Amendment grounds
State v. Keith M. Abbott, 2020 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
After losing a suppression motion, Abbott pled “no contest” to 2nd degree intentional homicide. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of suppression for some evidence and reversed it as to other evidence. It held that Abbott’s mental breakdown during questioning did not relieve him of his duty make an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. And while it rejected the State’s request that it adopt a new harmless error test for cases where the defendant appeals the denial of suppression after pleading guilty, it nevertheless affirmed under the existing harmless error rule.
Grounds phase TPR trial not tainted by “best interests” or other inadmissible evidence
A.C.-E. v. I.M., 2019AP573, 4/15/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects I.M.’s request for a new TPR grounds trial.
COA: Counties needn’t attempt personal service of Ch. 51 recommitment petitions
Marathon County v. R.J.O., 2020 WI App 20; case activity
This is an important, published, and demonstrably incorrect court of appeals’ decision regarding Chapter 51 recommitment procedure.
COA holds entry into home valid community-caretaker act; blood draw was exigency
State v. Shannon G. Potocnik, 2019AP523, 4/14/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
There’s a deep split nationwide about whether the community caretaker doctrine can ever permit entry into a home. Wisconsin has held that it can, and this pro se appeal is of course necessarily fact-bound. But the decision is thorough and provides a good summary of state community-caretaker law as it stands, along with a much briefer discussion of blood draws based on exigency.