On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Sammy Joseph Hadaway, 2018 WI App 59; case activity (including briefs)

Hadaway pleaded guilty to an armed robbery more than 20 years ago. Based, in part, on Hadaway’s testimony, his purported accomplice, Ott, was tried and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide–the victim of the crime was sexually assaulted and murdered.

State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs)

Applying its newly minted decision in State v. Stewart, 2018 WI App 41, the court of appeals holds that the “representing” element of identity theft under § 943.201 can be proven with the same evidence that proves the defendant “used” the identifying information or documents.

On July 25, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Theoris Raphel Stewart, 2018 WI App 41 (identity theft statute, § 943.203, applied to defendant’s forgery of documents he submitted at sentencing hearing)

Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44 (DOC may collect restitution from an inmate even after expiration of sentence to which restitution order was connected)

State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46; case activity (including briefs)

In light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s May 2018 decisions in State v. Muldrow, 2018 WI 52, 381 Wis. 2d 492, 912 N.W.2d 74, and State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373, the court of appeals now holds:

State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2018 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)

Egerson told the trial court that his lawyer was “totally deficient” and declared a “total breakdown in communication.” The trial court agreed to let Egerson have a new lawyer, but as the parties and the court discussed logistics, he said: “let me represent myself and have co-counsel.” When that was ignored, Egerson said: “let me represent myself and have no counsel.” The court of appeals holds that this was not clear and unequivocal request to go pro se. Thus, the trial court had no duty to conduct the colloquy required by State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). If Egerson’s words don’t satisfy the test, what words would? Perhaps SCOW will tell us.

Petitioner v. Robert D. Evans, 2018 WI App 53; case activity (including briefs)

Evans, the respondent in a domestic abuse injunction proceeding, filed a substitution request on the day of the injunction hearing. To find a substitute judge in cases where substitution is requested so close to the hearing, the clerk uses an “email volunteer system”: An email is sent out to all the other judges to see if anyone is available to take over the case, and the first judge who is gets the case. (¶¶2-4). The court of appeals finds nothing prohibiting this method of assigning a substitute judge.

On June 27, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36 (“boilerplate” motion to suppress didn’t contain sufficient allegations to merit an evidentiary hearing)

State ex rel. Drazen Markovic v. Jon E. Litscher, 2018 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)

The Department of Corrections has the authority to take certain funds from an inmate’s account to pay the restitution ordered in a case even though the inmate has finished serving the sentence in that case.

State v. Theoris Raphel Stewart, 2018 WI App 41; case activity (including briefs)

Facing sentencing for failure to pay child support, Stewart forged some documents to support his argument for probation rather than a prison sentence. For his trouble he was charged with and convicted of identity theft under § 943.203(2). The court of appeals rejects his argument that his use of the forged documents did not violate that statute. 

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.