On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Thomas R. McEssey, 2011AP2668-CR, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The police inadvertently destroyed a recording of a phone conversation between McEssey and the alleged victim. (A separate, but partial recording – containing only the latter’s side of the conversation – was made, misplaced, and belatedly disclosed to the defense.) Finding that the destruction of the recording of the full conversation was unintentional,

State v. Portia M. Meyer, 2012AP206-CR, District 4, 9/20/12

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

Assuming that the police placed Meyer under arrest when handcuffing her and placing her in the back of a squad car following a traffic accident, they had probable cause to do so for failure to yield right-of-way:

¶8        Police may arrest a person without a warrant for “the violation of a traffic regulation if the traffic officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating or has violated a traffic regulation.”[2]  Wis.

State v. Robert B. Sonnenberg, 2012AP1025, District 2, 9/19/12

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

Evidence held sufficient to sustain Sonnenberg’s conviction for OWI-1st. He admitted that he drank some indeterminate amount of alcohol before his car had a flat tire and then drank more on the side of the road; after an officer encountered him, he performed poorly on FSTs and his blood draw resulted in a .184 BAC.

Village of Menomonee Falls v. Timothy E. Rotruck, 2012AP1024-FT, District 2, 9/1, District 2, 9/19/12

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

Concededly proper traffic stop; after citations issued, officer sought and obtained consent to search vehicle, resulting in seizure of contraband – court concludes that, under the circumstances, traffic stop had clearly ended thus consent wasn’t product of an unnecessarily prolonged (therefore illegal) detention.

State v. Reginald Scott Williams, 2011AP1379-CR, District 1, 9/18/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams drove at an excessive speed (30+ over the limit), and crashed into another car, resulting in death and serious injuries. He pleaded no contest to one count of homicide by negligent use, § 940.10 and one count of reckless driving / GBH, § 346.62(4). At the time of the pleas,

State v. Richard P. Flehmer, 2012AP534-CR, District 3, 9/18/12

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

Delay of 29 months (22 of which attributable to state) between filing of complaint and trial, while presumptively prejudicial, didn’t violate 4-factor test for right to speedy trial:

¶15      Balancing all four factors, we conclude Flehmer’s right to a speedy trial was not violated.  Although the ­­­twenty-two month delay attributable to the State is a long period of time,

State v. William Thomas Hudson, III, 2010AP1598-CR, District 4, 9/13/12

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

¶9        “The concept of outrageous governmental conduct originates from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” [State v. Givens, 217 Wis. 2d 180, 188, 580 N.W.2d 340 (Ct. App. 1998).] Outrageous governmental conduct may arise where the government’s conduct is so enmeshed in the criminal activity that prosecution of the defendant would be repugnant to the American criminal justice system.  

State v. Alvin C. Harris, 2012AP518-CR, District 2, 9/12/12

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

Plea-Withdrawal 

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

¶7        Here, Harris’s motion alleged that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because of a defect in the plea colloquy.  

State v. Frederick J. Scott, 2012AP533-CR, District 3, 9/11/12

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

The threshold for illegal alcohol concentration is reduced from .08 to .02 for drivers who have at least 3 prior qualifying convictions. Scott had three priors, thus was subject to arrest and prosecution for driving with a PAC of .03. However, prior convictions may be collaterally attacked if obtained in violation of the right to counsel,

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

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

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.