On Point blog, page 190 of 266
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State v. Brian J. Anderson, 2013AP913-CR, District 1, 4/15/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity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State v. Marcos Ordonia-Roman, 2012AP1371-CR, District 1/4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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,
Lasanske compels rejection of Gerondale claim
State v. Anthony R. Giebel, 2013AP1874-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; c0urt of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Giebel challenged his misdemeanor repeater sentence based on the holding in State v. Gerondale, Nos. 2009AP1237/1238-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 3, 2009). While his appeal was pending, the court of appeals decided State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26,
TPR based on continuing denial of periods of placement and disposition didn’t violate due process
Dane County DHS v. Latasha G., 2014AP45 & 2014AP46, District 4, 4/3/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP45; 2014AP46
Latasha argues she was determined to be unfit based on a condition that was impossible for her to satisfy due to an order in criminal cases barring any contact with the girls. Thus, the termination violated her substantive due process rights under Kenosha Cnty.
Trial court improperly weighed persuasiveness of evidence in denying Ch. 980 discharge petition
State v. Scott Maher, 2013AP1815, District 4, 4/3/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court impermissibly weighed the relative persuasiveness of conflicting examination reports of experts when it denied Maher’s § 980.09 petition without holding a discharge hearing when it said it had “some ability apparently to assess the accuracy of the expert’s report or their qualifications” and concluded that the “wildly different conclusions”