On Point blog, page 203 of 263

County ordinance prohibiting squealing of tires not unconstitutionally vague, so traffic stop based on suspicion of violation of ordinance was reasonable

State v. Michael E. Mauermann, 2012AP2568-CR, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Iowa County Ordinance § 600.08 provides that “[n]o person shall operate a motor vehicle so as to make any loud, disturbing or unnecessary noise in or about any public street, alley, park or private residence which may tend to annoy or disturb another by causing the tires of said vehicle to squeal,

Read full article >

Refusal — sufficiency of evidence that officer conveyed implied consent warnings

State v. Randel R. Clark, 2012AP2661, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that the police officer used reasonable means to convey the necessary implied consent warnings to Clark under the standard in State v. Piddington2001 WI 24, ¶24, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528, despite Clark’s claims he couldn’t hear the officer,

Read full article >

TPR — continuing CHIPS; sufficiency of the evidence that parent will likely not meet the required conditions for return of the child

Kenosha County DHS v. Debra S.A., 2013AP318, District 2, 7/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-dependent decision that applies the well-established sufficiency standard (¶10), the court concludes the evidence at the fact-finding hearing permitted the trier of fact to conclude that Debra had not complied with requirements that she actively participate in mental health services and successfully complete and demonstrate an understanding of the principles taught in a parenting program and that she would not meet these conditions within nine months.

Read full article >

Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury. Closing argument — state’s reference to defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Prior inconsistent statement — witness’s lack of recollection

State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity

Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury

Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum teeth”

Read full article >

Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array

State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR2012AP588-CR2012AP589-CR2012AP590-CR

Joinder

Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In  two of the robberies the victim was killed,

Read full article >

Search and seizure — validity of search warrant: staleness of probable cause; overbreadth

State v. Diane M. Millard, 2012AP2646-CR, District 2, 7/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A search warrant was supported by probable cause because the two events cited in the warrant request–a controlled heroin buy in January 2011 and a garbage search in July 2011 revealing “a small, circle shaped screen with burnt [THC] residue on it” (¶2)–were not too far apart in time or too distinct in nature:

¶9        Regarding the staleness challenge,

Read full article >

Enhancer time may be added to extended supervision portion of bifurcated sentence for misdemeanor enhanced under § 939.62

State v. Shawn J. Robinson, 2012AP2498-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Robinson was convicted of  two misdemeanors which were enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a). He was sentenced on each count to bifurcated sentences consisting of one year of confinement and one year of extended supervision. (¶¶2-4). He later challenged the sentences under State v.

Read full article >

Postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging enhanced misdemeanor sentence is barred because issue was not raised in previous postconviction motion

State v.  Zackory J. Kerr, 2013AP273-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Kerr was sentenced to one year of confinement and one of extended supervision, consecutive to any other sentence. Shortly after sentencing he unsuccessfully challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (¶¶2-4). A few years later he moved for sentence modification based on  State v. Gerondale,

Read full article >

Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to object to evidence. Circuit court’s discretion to admit other acts evidence and child victim’s video statement

State v. Roy H. Beals, 2012AP1079-CR, District 2/1, 7/9/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Trial counsel in a sexual assault prosecution was not ineffective for failing to object to portions of two different video statements of the child victim (one from 2007, the other from 2009) because the evidence did not prejudice Beals. Trial counsel did object to the first 10 minutes of the 2007 video until after it had been played,

Read full article >

Confession — invocation of right to remain silent; voluntariness

State v. Ladarius Marshall, 2012AP140-CR, District 1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court properly denied Marshall’s motion to suppress his statements to police made during on-again off-again interrogation lasting from 10:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The court first rejects Marshall’s argument he didn’t invoke his right to remain silent:

¶21      The circuit court found that Marshall never unequivocally and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.

Read full article >