On Point: Published 2018

On November 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67 (juvenile court’s waiver into adult court binds all future courts)

On October 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63 (defendant consented to search of his computer and had no expectation of privacy in files put on P2P file sharing network)

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67, petition for review granted 4/9/19; affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Hinkle, a 16-year-old boy, was charged as a juvenile in two different counties for a car theft and police chase.  In Milwaukee County, the juvenile court waived him into adult court. So, did the Fond du Lac court have to treat him as an adult too?

On August 29, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46 (judge doesn’t have to inform defendant during plea colloquy about mandatory DNA surcharge)

State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2018 WI App 49 (“let me represent myself” wasn’t an unequivocal request by defendant to represent himself)

Petitioner v.

On September 26, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Norris W. Culver, Sr., 2018 WI App 55 (rejecting constitutional challenges to §§ 942.09 and 941.29)

State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57 (identify theft doesn’t require some extra act of “representing” in addition to “use” of identifying documents)

State v.

State v. Norris W. Culver, 2018 WI App 55; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin Stat. § 942.09(3m)(a)2. prohibits a person from posting or publishing “private representations” without the consent of the person depicted in the representation. The court of appeals rejects Culver’s claim that the statute is void because it’s overbroad and vague. The court also rejects his claim that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because of the non-violent nature of his prior felony conviction.

State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63; case activity (including briefs)

Police failed to read Baric his Miranda rights, but the court of appeals still found that he consented to a search of his computer. It also resolved a 4th Amendment issue of first impression for Wisconsin: a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in files he offers for download on a P2P file sharing network.

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)