On Point: B. Published opinions

On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a  petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)

State v.

State v. Brian L. Halverson, 2019 WI App 66; petition for review granted 3/17/20; affirmed 1/29/21; case activity (including briefs)

Until now, Wisconsin held that a person who is interviewed by law enforcement while incarcerated is per se in custody and thus must receive a Miranda warning. State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331, 588 N.W. 2d 606 (1999). This published court of appeals’ decision holds that the SCOTUS effectively overturned Armstrong in Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012). Going forward, courts must determine whether an inmate is in custody by analyzing the totality of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation.

State v. Jeffrey L. Ionescu, 2019 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

A homeowner told police that he found a burglar in his car and saw him run west across his yard. About 10 minutes later, officer and a trained tracking dog headed in that direction for about 30 minutes. The officer saw footprints, and the dog detected scent, off and on along the way. Eventually they reached the yard of burglar’s mother and entered it without a warrant. She let them enter her home where they found Ionescu. Was this pursuit cold, warm or hot?

On October 30, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Amy Joan Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57 (defendant entitled to credit under § 973.155 toward sentence imposed after revocation of deferred entry of judgment agreement)

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63, petition for review granted, 3/17/20, affirmed, 2020 WI 92; case activity (including briefs)

At a hearing on a committed person’s petition for discharge from a ch. 980 commitment, the state has the burden of proving the person is still a sexually violent person—that is, that the person: (1) has a mental disorder; and (2) is dangerous because that mental disorder makes it more likely than not the person will commit sexually violent offenses in the future. § 980.09(3). The court of appeals holds that even though the state needs an expert to prove the person has a mental disorder, it doesn’t need an expert to prove the person is dangerous because of the mental disorder.

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)

Olson and the state resolved some felony counts with an agreement that he’d plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court found him NGI and committed him for 19 years, placing him on conditional release immediately. A few weeks later, Olson admitted violating his release conditions by smoking methamphetamine. DHS, which supervises NGI committees, immediately took him into custody. For reasons unknown, it held him for eight days before filing a petition to revoke his supervised release. This, everyone agrees, violated Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e), which says such a petition “shall” be filed within 72 hours of detention (excluding weekends and holidays). The dispute on appeal is what that violation means: the state says there’s no consequence at all; Olson says a late petition is no good and must be dismissed. In legalese, the question is whether the word “shall” is mandatory or directory.

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)

So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn.

On September 25, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Daniel A. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49 (circuit court properly applied Denny and Sullivan tests to exclude evidence regarding third-party perpetrator)

State v. Malcolm J. Sanders, 2019 WI App 52 (prosecutor didn’t violate Batson by striking juror who had bad experience with police)

State v. Amy Joan Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs)

Zahurones was charged with several drug-related counts along with resisting an officer and physical abuse of a child. All the counts arose out of a single encounter with the police. She ultimately pleaded to four counts. On three of those counts she got probation, but on Count 2–the felony child-abuse count–she entered a deferred-judgment agreement with the state. The court put her on a signature bond with respect to that last count, since she wouldn’t otherwise be supervised. Over the next couple of years, Zahurones spent a total of about 9 months in jail on probation holds. Ultimately both the probation and the deferred-judgment agreement were revoked. So, does she get credit for those probation holds against her sentence on Count 2, even though she was technically on a signature bond for that count when she was in jail?

On August 28, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related cases:

State v. David Gutierrez, 2019 WI App 41 (circuit court erred in excluding evidence that DNA of other men was found on a victim’s clothing and buccal swab)

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44 (reversing circuit court’s conclusion that prosecutor’s charging decision was “absurd”