On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Columbia County v. Mark Devos, 2010AP2349, District 4, 5/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Devos: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The DOT Informing the Accused form that was read to Devos contained language beyond that specified in § 343.305(4): “In addition, under 2003 Wisconsin Act 97, your operating privileges will also be suspended if a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance is in your blood.” (This information must be provided to an accused pursuant to § 343.305(8).) Devos argues that DOT thereby effectively amended § 343.305(4) without legislative authorization,

State v. Jenny L. Nowak, 2010AP1499-CR, District 3, 5/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nowak: Keith F. Ellison; case activity

Warrantless entry into Nowak’s garage was justified under hot pursuit doctrine, given “probable cause to believe Nowak committed a jailable offense—specifically, resisting by failure to stop,” § 346.17(2t) (punishable by 9 months imprisonment), ¶15. (Citing, State v. Richter,

Village of Menomonee Falls v. Jesse Schaefer, 2010AP2485, District 2, 5/18/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schaefer: James A. Gramling, Jr.; case activity

¶4        As a threshold matter, we address the Village’s contention that the municipal court lacked competency to proceed on Schaefer’s Wis. Stat. § 806.07 motion to reopen.  Whether a court has lost competence to proceed presents a question of law that we review de novo.  

State v. William J. Zarda, 2011AP386-CR, District 3, 5/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Zarda: Ricky Cveykus; case activity

Under settled authority, the disorderly conduct statute, § 947.01, is neither overbroad (¶5, citing State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725); nor vague (¶6, citing State v. Zwicker,

Columbia County v. Fred A. Ederer, 2010AP2369, District 4, 5/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ederer: John Smerlinski; case activity

Ederer’s no contest plea waived his right to appeal suppression issue in this OWI-1st (therefore, civil) case. His reliance on County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 275-76, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995) (court should consider 4-factor test in determining whether to impose waiver bar) is misplaced:

¶5        Ederer acknowledges that Quelle was partially overruled on other grounds by Washburn County v.

State v. Robert L. Brinson, 2010AP001819-CR, District 1, 5/10/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brinson: Paul Bugenhagen, Jr.; case activity

Cautionary instruction cured any potential prejudice from revelation of prior record.

¶16      We disagree.  The trial court instructed the jury several times that it could not consider Brinson’s possible status as a probationer or parolee, or the fact that he spent time in jail,

State v. Robert Lyle Lawver, Jr., 2010AP382-CR, District 4, 5/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lawver: Cole Daniel Ruby; case activity

Conviction for disorderly conduct upheld on following facts:

¶9        The pertinent facts include the following.  Lawver was walking at night down an unlit highway, traveling with traffic, so that he would not have been in a position to see motorists approaching from behind him. 

State v. Brian M. Joski, 2010AP2223-CR, District 3, 5/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Joski: Thomas J. Coaty; case activity

A prior conviction used to enhance a new sentence may be collaterally attacked on the basis of violation of right to counsel, in other words, that the defendant didn’t validly waive counsel within the requirements set by State v. Klessig,

State v. Randy L. Martin, 2010AP505-CR, District 1, 5/3/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), reversed, 2012 WI 96; for Martin: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

Although Martin was in custody and had not received Miranda warnings, his statement wasn’t the result of “interrogation” and therefore wasn’t suppressible. When it appeared that Martin’s uncle was going to be arrested for possessing a gun found in their car,

State v. Andrew R. Reierson, 2010AP596-CR, District 4, 4/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reierson: John Smerlinski; case activity

The officer’s erroneous reading of Reierson’s license plate, causing the officer to wrongly believe that his registration had expired, nonetheless supported stop of the car under the good-faith rule.

¶11      We conclude the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress because the officer had probable cause to stop Reierson for operating with an expired registration,