On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Michael L. Washington, 2017 WI App 6, petition for review granted 4/10/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 3; case activity (including briefs)

Michael Washington was set to go on trial for burglary and obstructing an officer. On the morning of the first day of trial, before voir dire, Washington began complaining about his attorney, engaged in a contentious dialogue with the judge, and then “semi was removed and semi left on his own.” Voir dire and trial went on without him; he was occasionally contacted in his jail cell and refused to come back to the courtroom. He was convicted, and on appeal argues that his statutory (as opposed to constitutional) right to presence was violated because the statutory conditions for waiving that right were not met.

State v. Judith Ann Detert-Moriarty, 2017 WI App 2; case activity (including briefs)

The Wisconsin Equal Access to Justice Act, § 814.245, doesn’t apply to a person who prevailed in a forfeiture action brought in the name of the State of Wisconsin because the clear statutory language covers only actions brought by “a state agency.”

State v. Rachel M. Helmbrecht, 2017 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)

A circuit court’s decision on whether to order expungement under § 973.015 involves the exercise of discretion, and therefore the general rules governing the proper exercise of discretion apply to the expungement decision.

County of Fond du Lac v. Stuart D. Muche, 2016 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)

Muche threw a high school graduation party  for his son and (gasp!) some of the underage guests brought beer to it. Sheriff’s deputies showed up and cited Muche for violation of Fond du Lac County’s social host ordinance, which resulted in a forfeiture of $1,000. This decision dismisses the forfeiture and, according to the Journal Sentinel, could require changes to “dozens of social host ordinances aimed at combatting underage drinking.” In short, this decision is SCOW bait.

State v. Thomas J. Queever, 2016 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)

Thomas Queever tried to break into a house. We know this because the home’s security system captured video of him doing so. The circuit court and the court of appeals ordered him to pay the cost of said security system, concluding that the expense of installing it was the “result of a crime considered at sentencing,” even though it was installed prior to the burglary of which Queever was convicted. Does the court of appeals’ authority extend to reversing the arrow of time?

State v. Marie Williams, 2016 WI App 82; case activity (including briefs)

Like other states, Wisconsin has an opioid addiction epidemic. To encourage people to summon emergency aid for someone who has overdosed, the legislature passed §961.443 which provides that that an “aider” is immune from prosecution for the possession of drug paraphernalia under §961.573 or a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog under §961.41(3g) when trying to help a victim of overdose.

State v. David L. Tarlo, 2016 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)

When’s the last time you saw a defense win on a restitution issue? This child porn case addresses the vexing problem of circuit courts awarding restitution though the victim failed to prove that her losses were “a result of a crime considered at sentencing” as required by Wis. Stat. §973.20(14)(a). 

State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, petition for review granted 1/18/2017, reversed, 2017 WI 104; case activity (including briefs)

This decision is important to anyone who litigates claims for plea withdrawal under § 971.08(2) because it helps clarify the law in two ways. First, it provides two examples of a circuit court’s failure to comply with § 971.08(1)(c)’s requirement that the defendant be warned about the immigration consequences of a plea. Second, it explains what a defendant must allege to make a sufficient showing that his or her plea is likely to result in deportation.

State v. Anthony Darnell Davis, 2016 WI App 73; case activity (including briefs)

Davis argued that he could not be convicted of recklessly causing “great bodily harm” to a child where the injuries he inflicted were bone fractures which, by statute, qualify as only “substantial bodily harm.” See Wis. Stat. § 939.22(38). The court of appeals disagreed.

Oconto County v. Jonathan E. Van Ark, 2015AP1415, 8/23/16; District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Van Ark was sitting in his parked pickup truck when a deputy approached him, smelled alcohol, saw his glossy, blood-shot eyes, and observed his slow, slurred speech.  A subsequent hospital blood draw indicated that Van Ark had a .237 BAC. The State charged him with OWI and operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration and moved for directed verdicts on both counts. The circuit court denied a directed verdict on the OWI charge, but granted it on the PAC charge. The court of appeals reversed based on WIS JI–CRIMINAL 2660A.