On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Angelo M. Reynolds, 2016AP420-CR, District 4, 6/22/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police had sufficient probable cause to request that Reynolds provide a preliminary breath test under § 343.303.

State v. Benjamin Schneller, 2016AP2474, 6/22/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Benjamin Schneller was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a blood draw, so the police got a warrant and took the blood anyway. He argues on appeal that the warrant only authorized the police to draw his blood, and that a separate warrant was required for them to test it.

State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, 6/20/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 10/17/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)

Sholar was charged with 5 counts of sex trafficking and 1 count of sexual assault.  At trial, defense counsel allowed “Exhibit 79”–a 181-page report containing the contents of Sholar’s cell phone, including 1,4000 text messages and photos of girls and women in suggestive poses, to go to the jury. The State concedes that defense counsel  performed deficiently, but argued that Sholar was prejudiced only with respect to the sexual assault charge, not the sex trafficking charges. The court of appeals agreed.

State v. Tyshun DeMichael Young, 2016AP657-CR, 6/20/17, District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Young of attempted 1st-degree intentional homicide and 1st degree recklessly-endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should not have permitted the jury to hear evidence that his younger brother was killed exactly one year prior to the date he allegedly shot the victims in this case.

Marquette County v. Matthew J. Owens, 2016AP2176, District 4, 6/15/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Owens argues that a police officer’s driving was so careless or unlawful that it required Owens to react in a way that created reasonable suspicion to stop him. Not so, says the court of appeals.

State v. Cynthia Hansen, 2016AP2114-CR, 6/14/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hansen beat up a car that was marital property between her and her wife. She pled to criminal damage to property of another; on appeal she claims, inventively, that the theft statute gave her the right to do just as she did. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Ron Joseph Allen, 2016AP885, 6/13/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Ron Allen of first-degree intentional homicide as party to the crime. He raises various challenges to the conviction and sentence of life without extended supervision, but the court of appeals rejects them all.

State v. F.J.R., 2017AP558 & 559, 6/13/17, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

F.J.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. She argues that the court’s pretrial suspension of visitation with one of the children prejudiced her in various ways. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Omar Quinton Triggs, 2015AP2533, 6/13/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A patrolling officer saw Triggs “close a garage door and quickly run to the driver’s door” and get into his car, which was parked nearby in an alley. Five officers in three vehicles converged, forcibly removed Triggs from his car, and handcuffed him. 

Marquette County v. T.F.W., 2017AP5, 6/8/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.F.W. objected to the having his treating psychiatrist testify by telephone at his Chapter 51 extension hearing. He cited both §885.60 and “due process.” He did not specifically cite §807.13(2)(c), which outlines 8 factors a trial court should consider before allowing telephonic testimony. The court of appeals held that T.F.W. forfeited his §807.13(2)(c) argument perhaps without realizing (or perhaps not acknowledging) that the statute was enacted to protect due process rights.