On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Julie A. Bilquist, 2014AP426-CR, District 3, 9/23/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The totality of the circumstances justified extending Bilquist’s detention to investigate whether she was driving while intoxicated despite the lack of indicia—e.g., odor of an intoxicant; glossy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech—suggesting she had consumed an intoxicant.

State v. Walter J. Kugler, 2014AP220, District 2, 9/17/14 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Kugler challenged his first OWI conviction by arguing that the state trooper who stopped him did not have the requisite probable cause and improperly requested, as a community caretaker, that he submit to a PBT (which he refused). The court of appeals reframed the issue as whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion of an OWI when he detained Kugler for field sobriety tests. You can guess the result. The court of appeals also rushed ahead to decide a McNeely issue that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is literally poised to decide.

State v. Travanti D. Schmidt, 2014AP718-CR, District 4, 9/18/14 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

And we do mean “spilled milk.” A jury convicted Schmidt, an inmate, of disoderly conduct for spilling milk on a prison guard. Defense counsel did not object to the admission of a videotape showing the incident from a side view, some distance away from Schmidt’s cell.  Without the video, there was only the testimony of the guard and Schmidt. The court of appeals held that exclusion of the video wouldn’t have made a difference; the jury would have believed the prison guard anyway.

State v. Andrew J. Kuster, 2014AP109-CR, District 2, 9/17/14 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This seemingly run-of-the-mill OWI appeal has an interesting little wrinkle.  The police conducted a warrantless blood draw on Kuster before SCOTUS decided Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S.__, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), but they didn’t have the blood tested until after the  decision came out.  This sequence of events did not trouble the court of appeals because it views the seizure and subsequent analysis of a person’s blood as a single event.

State v. Samantha J., 2014AP988, 2014AP989, 2014AP1017, District 1, 9/17/14 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This case is noteworthy in 2 respects.  First, the court of appeals upheld a default judgment as to grounds for terminating a mother’s parental rights–always a significant step, given the stakes.  And, second, the court of appeals complimented a brief–specifically, the brief filed by the GAL, Linnea Matthiesen.

State v. Jevon S.  Appeal Nos. 2014AP1426 & 2014AP1427; State v. Latoya M., Appeal Nos. 2014AP1424 & 2014AP1425, District 1, 9/16/14 (one-judge opinions, ineligible for publication); (case activity for Jevon S.; case activity for Latoya M.)

Jevon S. and Latoya M. appealed orders terminating their parental rights. Neither contested the grounds for termination, but at their joint dispositional hearing they both wanted their two children removed from their separate foster homes and placed with Jevon’s mother. The circuit court ruled against them, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. John M. Lattimore, 2013AP911-CR, District 4, 9/11/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Lattimore was convicted of 2nd-degree sexual assault with use of force and false imprisonment against S.M.  He appealed trial court decisions to: (1) join a count of 3rd-degree sexual assault against a different victim, M.H., to S.M.’s trial, (2) exclude the text of a Facebook message sent by S.M.’s brother to the defendant right after the assault, and (3) admit testimony about S.M.’s personality change after the assault.  He had no luck with the court of appeals.

Sheboygan County DHHS v. Phillip L., 2014AP780, District 2, 9/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

When Phillip entered his no-contest plea at the fact-finding stage of his termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding, the circuit court didn’t take sworn testimony to support the TPR petition, as required by § 48.422(3). Because Phillip doesn’t allege the error resulted in any lack of understanding as to the plea he entered, he is not entitled to withdraw his plea.

Winnebago County v. William A.M., 2014AP977-FT, District 2, 9/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove William was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., which requires a showing of “such impaired judgment, manifested by evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself or herself.”

State v. Elisa Estrada, 2013AP2803-CR, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity

Estrada did not challenge the legality of the law enforcement’s decision to stop her vehicle for a traffic violation.  Her appeal focused on the decision to extend the stop longer than necessary to address a suspended registration in order to investigate a robbery that had occurred about 50 minutes earlier.  She highlighted weaknesses in the facts cited to show reasonable suspicion, but the court of appeals found them plenty strong enough.