On Point blog, page 185 of 262
State proved defendant made valid waiver of right to counsel in prior OWI case
State v. Casey D. Schwandt, 2013AP2775-CR, District 2, 4/23/14 (one judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Schwandt’s knowledge about both the role attorneys play and their specialized training showed he made a valid waiver of counsel in a prior OWI case, despite his claim he was unaware of what an attorney could do for him in the particular case in which he waived counsel.
Sentencing court’s “assumption” that defendant acted with intent to kill victim was not inaccurate information
State v. Jameil A. Garrett, 2013AP1178-CR & 2013AP1179-CR, District 2, 4/23/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2013AP1178-CR; 2013AP1179-CR
The circuit court did not sentence Garrett based on an “unwarranted assumption” that Garrett acted with intent to kill the victim of a strangulation offense. Thus, Garrett is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
Evidence that defendant asked victim to lie and choked her admitted as “other acts” evidence
State v. Daniel K. Rogers, 2012AP186-CR, District 4, 4/17/14; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The defendant, having been charged with sexual assault and released on bond, allegedly choked his victim to make her to lie on his behalf at trial. The circuit court admitted this as § 904.04(2) “other acts” evidence at the sexual assault trial, and the COA affirmed because the evidence showed consciousness of guilt.
Restitution award upheld despite evidence of inflated repair estimates
State v. Paul J. Williquette, 2013AP2127-CR, District 4, 4/17/14; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
What happens when a restitution award is twice the victim’s actual repair costs? In this case, not much. Williquette was ordered to pay restitution based upon State-submitted repair estimates. Later, he moved for sentence modification claiming the actual (and lesser) amount the victim paid for repairs was a “new factor” justifying a reduced restitution award. The COA held that by not challenging the estimates at sentencing, Williquette stipulated to their reasonableness and that the actual repair costs did not amount to a “new factor.”
Pre-McNeely blood test results deemed admissible under good-faith exception to exclusionary rule
State v. Neil A. Morton, 2013AP2366-CR, District 4, 4/17/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is another OWI case holding that a warrantless blood draw that would now be unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely is admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Evidence of victim’s violent character excluded; evidence of defendant’s other violent acts admitted
State v. Brian J. Anderson, 2013AP913-CR, District 1, 4/15/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Anderson appealed his conviction for 1st-degree intentional homicide arguing that the trial court should have admitted evidence of his victim’s violent character under State v. McMorris and excluded “other acts” evidence under State v. Sullivan and § 904.04(2) and 904.03. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
Trial counsel’s exchange with trial court about a misstatment of fact in a suppression motion didn’t create conflict of interest or establish judicial bias
State v. Marcos Ordonia-Roman, 2012AP1371-CR, District 1/4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
In a motion to suppress Ordonia-Roman’s confession, trial counsel alleged that during his interrogation Ordonia-Roman was without a required medication and was not allowed to take the medication. At the suppression hearing, however, Ordonia-Roman testified he had been prescribed the medication,
General summons statute for ch. 48 doesn’t provide basis for grandparents to intervene in CHIPS proceeding
Renee B. v. Dane County DHS, 2013AP2273, District 4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court’s decision to give grandparents notices of CHIPS hearings under the ch. 48 summons statute, § 48.27(2), doesn’t mean the grandparents have the right to intervene in the proceeding. While David S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis.
Trial court erred in relying on the abrogated “interlocking confession” doctrine to deny severance of co-defendants’ trials
State v. John M. Navigato, 2012AP2108-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
State v. Teddy W. Bieker, 2012AP2693-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court, relying on the district attorney’s assertion of the so-called “interlocking confessions” doctrine, denied Navigato’s and Bieker’s motions to sever their trials on homicide,
Police had probable cause to arrest for eluding and OWI
State v. Marcus Norfleet, 2013AP2294-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had probable cause to arrest Norfleet for both eluding and operating while intoxicated under the totality of the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of arrest.
After an officer tried to stop a speeding car at around 1:00 a.m., the car accelerated,