On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2012AP336-CR, District 1, 12/27/12;  court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/13; case activity

Order allowing police to track the current location of cell phone upheld, rejecting Tate’s argument that it constituted an illegal search warrant:

¶8        The heart of Tate’s argument on appeal is that the order authorizing the tracking of Tate’s phone to find its location was invalid under Wis.

State v. Jesse D. Fries, 2011AP517-CR, District 4, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Cost of installing new, upgraded security system in a convenience store after robbery was a “special damage” and therefore a proper item of restitution:

¶8        Fries’ primary contention is that an expenditure does not qualify as a special damage unless it was “spent to return the victim to the financial state he was in before the crime occurred.”  Here,

State v. Daniel Ryan Curry, 2012AP515-CR, District 1, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Newly discovered evidence

Defendant not entitled to new trial based on potentially exculpatory testimony of two witnesses, because the witnesses were known to him before trial. The two witnesses were the son and nephew of a defense witness named Rivera. Statements made by Curry and Rivera and contained in police reports,

State v. Justin L. Garrett, Case No. 12AP1341-CR, District 2, 12/19/12

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Garrett failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was defective, so his motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing:

¶10      Garrett argues that he did not understand the meaning of the specific elements of the charge of fourth-degree sexual assault: sexual contact and consent.  

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12

 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:

¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,

State v. Dylan T.W., 2012AP1761-FT, District 2, 12/12/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support delinquency adjudication for felony battery where juvenile pushed a whiteboard into a teacher and then injured the same teacher by forcefully opening a door in the teacher’s path. Arguments the juvenile was not aware of the consequences of his actions because he was “singularly focused on leaving the classroom” and that there was conflicting evidence of the event,

State v. Mark A. Gierczak, 2012AP965-CR, District 4, 12/13/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

For purposes of obstructing an officer § 946.41, “officer” includes someone with authority “to take another into custody,” and therefore includes a correctional officer at a county jail, ¶¶11-12. The court of appeals thus rejects Gierczak’s challenge to the factual basis for his obstructing plea where as a county jail inmate,

State v. David J. Galarowicz, 2012AP933-CR, District 3, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

Galarowicz was not denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict on one count of disorderly conduct where the evidence showed an incident of disorderly conduct with the victim in the residence and additional conduct with the same victim in the residence after a twenty-minute pause. 

State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity

Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that the in-court identification was tainted because the photo array was unduly suggestive. 

State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2012AP1426, District 4, 12/6/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 6/13/13; reversed, 2013 WI 106; case activity

A circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge, § 343.305, after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI, State v. Brooks,