On Point blog, page 45 of 214
Interstate Agreement on Detainers — delivery of request for disposition to prosecuting officer; applicability of substantial compliance doctrine
State v. Ervin Thomas, 2013 WI App 78; case activity
The trial court properly calculated the 180-day speedy trial time limit from the prosecutor’s actual receipt of Thomas’s demand for disposition, and not from the receipt of the demand three days earlier by the county courthouse’s “Information Management Services Distribution” [sic] office. Under § 976.05(3)(a) and State v. Whittemore,
Court of Appeals Enforces Stipulation to Forgo Appeal in TPR Case; Denies Discretionary Reversal
Ronald J.R. v. Alexis L.A., 2013 WI App 79; case activity
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment decision finding grounds to terminate Alexis L.A.’s parental rights. The father, Ronald J.R., sought termination on two grounds and won summary judgment on the first one. The parties then stipulated that Ronald would withdraw the second ground, if Alexis would agree not to appeal the partial summary judgment on the first ground.
Multiplicity — conviction for inchoate crime of conspiracy and completed crime under § 939.72(2). Constitutional right to speedy trial. Prosecutorial misconduct — failing to disclose sentencing consideration for a state’s witness
State v. Michael Lock, 2013 WI App 80; case activity
Multiplicity — conviction for conspiracy and for completed crime under § 939.72(2)
Lock was convicted of conspiracy to solicit prostitutes and conspiracy to pander between 1998 and 2003. Based on conduct in four specific months in 2002, he was also convicted of four counts of soliciting prostitutes as a party to the crime and four counts of pandering as party to the crime.
Courts needn’t specify whether defendant is charged with a felony or a misdemeanor when accepting a guilty plea
State v. Nely B. Robles, 2013 WI App 76; case activity.
Issue: When accepting a guilty plea is the circuit court required to specify whether the defendant is pleading to a felony or a misdemeanor?
Robles sought to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that the circuit court’s failure to specify the designation of the charged crime violated Wis. Stats. § 971.08(1)(a)’s requirement that she be informed of the “nature of the charge.”
Court must decide at the time of sentencing whether a conviction may be expunged under § 973.015(1)(a)
State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2013 WI App 63, petition for review granted, affirmed, 2014 WI 27; case activity
The plain language of § 973.015 requires the circuit court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the defendant’s conviction can be expunged on successful completion of the sentence:
¶9 Matasek is correct that Wis.
Warrantless search of home was not justified under community caretaker doctrine
State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity
The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine:
¶37 …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering the apartment, addressing the apparent domestic situation, and making a reasonable assessment of the need for any further assistance or protection,
OWI — the penalty language of § 346.65(2)(am)6. does not require the court to impose a bifurcated sentence
State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2013 WI App 74, petition for review granted 11/21/13; reversed, 2014 WI 64, 7/15/14; case activity
Wisconsin Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)6. makes OWI 7th, 8th, or 9th a Class G felony, but also provides that “[t]he confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence imposed on the person under s. 973.01 shall be not less than 3 years.”
Rape Shield Law — prior sexual activity between defendant and complainant; relevance to fact in issue; probative value outweighing prejudice
State v. Muhammad Sarfraz, 2013 WI App 57, petition for review granted 9/17/13; case activity
The circuit court erroneously excluded evidence of prior sexual activity between Sarfraz and I.N., the complainant. She alleged Sarfraz, wearing a mask and saying he was the landlord, knocked on the door of her apartment, came in when she opened the door, and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
Automobile exception to warrant requirement — probable cause to search trunk based on evidence found in passenger compartment
State v. Andrew Alexander Jackson, Jr., 2013 WI App 66; case activity
The circuit court erred in suppressing marijuana found in the trunk of Jackson’s car because there was probable cause to search the trunk based on the discovery of marijuana residue, $1,961 in cash, and a digital scale in the passenger compartment of the car:
¶10 Like in [United States v.] Ross,
New trial ordered due to erroneous evidentiary rulings that excluded school disciplinary records relevant to impeaching the complainant and admitted Haseltine-type evidence
State v. Gene A. Echols, 2013 WI App 58; case activity
Echols is entitled to a new trial on charges of child sexual assault because the trial court erred in prohibiting evidence relating to the complainant’s motive to fabricate the assault and in admitting testimony from Echols’s employer that he only stutters when he is lying.
Erroneous ruling excluding complainant’s school disciplinary records
A fifteen-year-old student alleged that Echols,