On Point blog, page 192 of 263
Resentencing required because PSI included defendant’s compelled statements to probation agent
State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2013AP843-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed, 2015 WI 6; case activity
Alexander was on probation when he was charged with forgery. He pled to the forgery and a PSI was prepared. (¶2). Attached to the PSI were statements the defendant made to his probation agent about two other forgeries.
Resentencing judge was not vindictive, did not rely on inaccurate information, and did not impose excessive sentence
State v. Quincy Lashawn Baker, 2013AP242-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Baker was given a resentencing hearing based on inaccurate information about the maximum periods of confinement and supervision for the crime of conviction (felony murder). (¶¶4-5). At the resentencing hearing before a different judge, the state argued Baker’s profane outburst at the conclusion of his original sentencing hearing showed a lack of remorse.
Traffic stop based on seat belt violation didn’t preclude frisk of passenger
State v. Dartanian Lemont Lewis, 2013AP454-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Lewis was a passenger in a car stopped for safety belt violations. During the stop he was frisked, leading to the discovery of cocaine. He argued the frisk was improper because § 347.48(2m)(gm) prohibits police from taking an individual into physical custody solely for failing to wear a safety belt.
Defendant in traffic forfeiture case can’t seek costs against plaintiff
County of Milwaukee v. Shear Winston, 2013AP479, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Winston can’t get court costs against the county after his speeding citations were dismissed (¶¶2-5):
¶11 Wisconsin Stat. § 345.53 states: “[i]n traffic regulation actions in all courts, costs may not be taxed against the plaintiff.” The language of the statute is clear: costs simply are not taxed against plaintiffs in traffic forfeitures.
No warrant, no affidavit, no worries. Failure to file suppression motion wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. James Howard, 2013AP190-CR; 1/22/14; District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity
Howard, a former correctional officer, was convicted of 2nd and 3rd degree sexual assault of an inmate at the Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility. On appeal he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) move to suppress buccal swab evidence obtained without a warrant, (2) move to suppress penile swab evidence because the warrant for it was not supported by an affidavit,
Trial court didn’t err in allowing deliberating jury to review the state pathologist’s report, but not the report of the defendant’s pathologist
State v. Chase M.A. Boruch, 2013AP925-CR, District 3, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
While deliberating on the charge that Boruch killed his mother, the jury asked the judge for the “autopsy report.” (¶¶4, 8). The parties agreed to send back the preliminary and final reports done by Corliss, the state’s pathologist, along with a toxicology report; however, the judge refused Borcuch’s request to send the jury the report of Randall,
Parents in TPR proceeding not prejudiced by GAL’s connections to judge and prior representation of child at CHIPS hearing
Manitowoc County Human Services Dep’t v. Rebecca H, 2013AP421/422; 1/22/14; District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This is an appeal from an order terminating a couple’s parental rights to their daughter. They claimed their trial lawyer provided ineffective of assistance of counsel by failing to object to the admission of various types of evidence. The court of appeals quickly disposed of those errors through repeated findings that counsel’s performance was not deficient–which is one of the two requirements for ineffective assistance of counsel per A.S.
Court of appeals bungles denial of motion for reconsideration of decision on petition for writ coram nobis
Sawyer County v. Maurice J. Corbin, 2013AP650; 1/22/14; District 3 (one-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
This is an odd little case with some interesting potential. In 2004, Corbine was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a chemical blood test under implied consent law. Supposedly Corbine received a “notice of intent to revoke operating privilege” but failed to request a refusal hearing, so the court entered default judgment revoking his license.
Police had reasonable suspicion for traffic stop despite some discrepancies between description in dispatch and car actually stopped
State v. Chad Allen Nelson, 2013Ap1926-CR, District 3, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Scene: The parking lot of Frosty’s Outpost, on County Road H in rural Bayfield County, 2:00 a.m. Police get a dispatch: Someone’s damaging a patron’s vehicle in the parking lot. Before an officer can respond dispatch sends an update: The suspects are bear hunters, and they left in a blue Dodge pickup with a hound box heading toward the bear camp west of Ino on Highway 2.
Lack of probable cause to administer first PBT didn’t taint subsequent field sobriety tests and second PBT
State v. Derek S. Strasen, 2013AP1523-CR, District 2, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was no probable cause to administer an initial PBT to Strasen, who was stopped for speeding, even though he emitted a faint smell of intoxicants, had bloodshot and “glossy” eyes, and said he had been drinking but had his consumed his last drink over 12 hours earlier. (¶¶2, 4).