On Point blog, page 176 of 266
Defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that amnesia affected his ability to mount a defense
State v. Geoffrey A. Herling, 2014AP565-CR, District 4, 12/18/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not err by requiring Herling to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had amnesia that prevented him from mounting an adequate defense.
Police had sufficient basis to conduct stop and frisk
State v. Terrell D. Cobbs, 2014AP501-CR, District 2, 12/17/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop Cobbs and two companions and to conduct the pat-down search of Cobbs during which police discovered, opened, and searched Cobbs’ cigarette box, which contained marijuana.
JIPS order was supported by sufficient evidence and doesn’t violate parents’ religious rights
State v. Ester M. and Alexander M., 2014AP1621, District 1, 12/16/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s order finding Soreh M. to be a juvenile in need of protection or services evidence is supported by sufficient and doesn’t impinge on the right to religious freedom of her parents, Ester M. and Alexander M. In addition, the circuit court had the statutory authority to order conditions for the parents to complete before the court would consider placing Soreh M. in their home again.
Defendant didn’t show his mental illness rendered his guilty plea invalid
State v. Douglas E. Hanson, 2014AP623-CR, District 4, 12/11/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Hanson failed to present sufficient credible evidence that he did not understand the consequences of pleading guilty to second offense OWI.
Pat-down search was lawful because police had probable cause to arrest
State v. Steven L. Kaulfuerst, 2014AP1428-CR, District 2, 12/10/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The pat-down search of Kaulfuerst was lawful because police had probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, even though police had not arrested him for that offense.
Tip that driver was drunk and had his children in the car supported community caretaker stop
State v. David C. Marker, 2014AP1122-CR, District 2, 12/10/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The stop of the vehicle Marker was driving was justified under the community caretaker exception because, based on a call from Marker’s ex-wife, police had reason to believe Marker was driving while intoxicated with his children in the vehicle.
Cases dismissed after completion of deferred prosecution agreement can’t be expunged under § 973.015
State v. Andrew R. Geurts, 2014AP1520-CR, District 4, 12/4/14 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court had no authority to expunge the record of Geurts’s criminal case after it was dismissed after his successful completion of a deferred prosecution agreement because § 973.015 applies only to the record of an offense for which the person has been found guilty.
Jury instruction defining “drug” using dictionary was proper in ch. 51 commitment based on drug dependency
Marathon County v. Zachary W., 2014AP955, District 3, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Even if the circuit court erred it provided multiple definitions of the term “drug” when instructing the jury hearing a ch. 51 commitment case.
Evidence found sufficient to support termination of parental rights
State v. Faizel K., 2014AP2035 & 2014AP2036, District 1, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2035; 2014AP2036
In this fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support the orders terminating Faizel’s parental rights to his sons Mohammed K. and Robeul K.
Odor of raw marijuana didn’t justify search of driver’s wallet
State v. Ashley L. Eirich, 2014AP1901-CR, District 2, 11/26/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Saying that “[t]raining and experience do not turn police officers into drug-detection canines,” the court of appeals holds that probable cause to search a vehicle based on the odor of raw marijuana did not extend to a search of the bill compartment of the driver’s wallet.