On Point blog, page 17 of 266
COA: Evidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances sufficient due to reasonable inference
State v. Joseph B. Venable, 2023AP1367, 8/15/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court judgment convicting Venable of first offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), due to his use of prescription medications.
COA: Reports of domestic incident justified stopping vehicle as community caretaking function; extending stop to perform field sobriety tests permitted based on reasonable suspicion of OWI.
State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence. She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.
COA affirms discretionary termination order under deferential standard of review
State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.
COA rejects attack on discretionary termination order under well-settled precedent
Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying TPR defendant’s request for new counsel.
Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.
COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.
City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.
COA holds that appeal of Chapter 55 protective placement review is moot
Washington County v. T.R.Z., 2024AP21, District II, 6/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “Tim’s” appeal presents several issues for review, COA dismisses the appeal as moot given the existence of an intervening Watts review.
COA affirms refusal based on delayed and equivocal consent
Village of Butler v. Brandon J. Hernandez, 2023AP1707, 6/19/24, District II (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity
Hernandez challenges the circuit court’s finding that he improperly refused to submit to a OWI blood draw, arguing that he consented. The court of appeals rejects his argument, concluding that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.
COA holds that circuit court properly concluded defendant did not establish existence of medication-induced amnesia
State v. Reynaldo Rosalez, 2022AP1929-CR, 6/11/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In a case illustrating the stringent standard of review used to assess findings of fact, COA dispatches with Rosalez’s claim that his lawyer failed to discuss a defense related to his alleged medication-induced amnesia.
Defense Win! COA reverses recommitment order
Marathon County v. N.R.P., 2023AP638, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 reversal, COA finds fault with both the circuit court’s decision to admit and rely on hearsay evidence and its failure to make the required findings.