On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Ronald W. Lichty, 2012 WI App 129(recommended for publication); case activity

Lichty pleaded no contest pursuant to plea bargain which allowed, due to a good-faith mistake, the State to recommend a period of extended supervision that exceeded the permissible maximum by one year. The error was discerned prior to sentencing, where the State reduced its extended supervision recommendation by one year. (His plea was to two counts of the same offense,

Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 2012 WI App 120(recommended for publication); case activity

A court doesn’t possess inherent authority to impose on counsel a sanction (here, monetary) for pre-litigation advice, that is, conduct occurring before the court’s jurisdiction was invoked:

¶3        We conclude that the record, particularly the trial court’s own words in its ruling, clearly shows that the trial court imposed the sanction for pre-litigation legal advice that the trial court believed Godfrey &

Ardonis Greer v. David H. Schwarz, 2012 WI App 122, petition for review granted 6/12/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 19; case activity

DOC Discharge Certificate (Probation, § 973.09(5)) – Wrongly Issued, Prior to Expiration of Term of Probation 

As a function of “administrative error,” the department of corrections issued Greer a discharge certificate before his term of probation had expired.

State v. Robert M. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (recommended for publication); case activity

Although “the summons, complaint and the supporting affidavit must each be authenticated as a condition of personal jurisdiction when commencing a forfeiture action,” ¶1,  an authentication defect attributable to a clerk’s error is merely technical and doesn’t impair jurisdiction.

¶4        In Schmitt’s case, the first page of the summons and the first page of the complaint were each authenticated,

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2012 WI App 110 (recommended for publication); case activity

Counsel (Michael J. Knoeller) was present while the police interrogated, and elicited incriminating responses from, his client, Gonzalez-Villarreal. G-V didn’t speak English, and Knoeller doubled as interpreter. The state issued charges, and Knoeller continued to represent G-V. However, the state moved to disqualify Knoeller as counsel, arguing that his service as interpreter during the interrogation created a risk that Knoeller might have to testify.

State v. Christopher J. Felton, 2012 WI App 114 (recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – PBT – Probable Cause 

Notwithstanding that Felton passed field sobriety tests, probable cause existed to administer a preliminary breath test.

¶8        This section does not require that the officer have probable cause to arrest a driver for drunk driving before giving that driver a preliminary-breath test. 

State v. Carl Rissley, 2012 WI App 112 (recommended for publication); case activity 

Reasonable suspicion supported Terry stop to investigate possible crime. Homeowner called police to report early-morning confrontation with possible trespasser, who then took flight in van at high rate of speed, and officer stopped vehicle matching description within five minutes of report:

¶13      All of this occurred just before 3:00 a.m.  When a citizen is confronted in his driveway by an unknown stranger at this time in the morning,

Chintan V. Patel v. State of Wisconsin, 2012 WI App 117 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶12      In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Patel’s writ of coram nobis.  The writ of coram nobis is a discretionary writ of “very limited scope” that is “addressed to the trial court.”  Jessen v. State,

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity

Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility

The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide:

¶9        When applying the some evidence standard, “the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable construction of the evidence will support the defendant’s theory viewed in the most favorable light it will reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.”  [State v.

State v. Pierre R. Conner, 2012 WI App 105 (recommended for publication); case activity

Interrogations – Miranda-Edwards Rule – Unequivocal Request for Counsel 

The issues on a request-for-counsel challenge to in-custody interrogation are whether the individual  unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and, if so, whether he subsequently reinitiated questioning, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981). Although the trial court found that Conner’s requests for counsel were equivocal,