On Point blog, page 123 of 263
Court of appeals rejects numerous challenges to homicide conviction
State v. Ron Joseph Allen, 2016AP885, 6/13/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
Suspension of parental visits did not render T.P.R. proceeding unfair
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.
Defense win on Miranda and consent to search
State v. Omar Quinton Triggs, 2015AP2533, 6/13/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
Issues, arguments, and objecting to telephonic testimony
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.
No relief in TPR
Taylor County DHHS v. S.A.L., 2016AP2369, 6/7/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.A.L. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. She alleges ineffective assistance of her trial counsel and that the court failed to properly exercise discretion during the dispositional phase. The court of appeals affirms.
Failure to tell defendant he might get different judge not ineffective
State v. Julius Lee Sanders, 2014AP2644, 6/6/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Julius Sanders appeals from his judgment of conviction and the denial, without a hearing, of his postconviction motion.
DHS’s transfer of NGI acquittee to DOC custody violated circuit court’s commitment order
State v. Bruce C. Brenizer, 2015AP2181, District 3, 6/6/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including select briefs)
The Department of Health Services didn’t have authority to transfer Brenizer to the Department of Corrections because the circuit court’s commitment order unambiguously states that Brenizer is committed to DHS custody for life unless his custody is terminated under § 971.17(5) (1991-92).
Defense win! Defense counsel’s failure to object warranted new trial
State v. David Earl Harris, Jr., 2016AP548-CR, 5/31/17, District 1 (unpublished); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Harris with heinous conduct giving rise to false imprisonment, sexual assault, and strangulation charges. At trial, the DA introduced a copy of a TRO that pre-dated the criminal complaint but mirrored the facts that it alleged. Defense counsel didn’t mind letting the jury see the TRO because she thought it showed that the TRO allegations were false. But she didn’t notice the part of the TRO where the court commissioner found reasonable grounds to believe that Harris had committed all heinous conduct described in the TRO. Uh oh. Guess what happened?
Totality of circumstances justified investigative detention
State v. Sara Ann Ponfil, 2016AP2059-CR, 5/31/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A police officer discovered cocaine after he detained Ponfil, who, as the officer approached, got out of one of two vehicles parked next to each other outside a bar. The court of appeals concludes that, considered together, the bar’s status as a “high-crime area,” the behavior of the vehicles’ occupants, and the presence of a known gang member in the other vehicle provided reasonable suspicion to believe she was engaged in illegal conduct.
Fines and forfeitures affirmed due to defendant’s failure to carry burden or proof
State v. Paul A. Adams, 2016AP1149, 5/31/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Adams, an inmate, objected to the garnishment of his prison wages to pay fines and forfeitures assessed in various traffic and OWI cases. The court of appeals rejected all of his claims because Adams, the moving party, bore the burden of proof but failed to offer any evidence that the amounts assessed were incorrect.