On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2021AP1100, 7/12/22, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity, (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Rivera’s claims for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Rivera challenged trial counsel’s counsel’s failure to seek suppression of an in-court identification because (a) it was tainted by an earlier suggestive “showup” procedure, and (b) his right to counsel was violated during the line-up because his retained counsel was not present for it.

State v. A.G., 2022AP652, 7/12/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petitions for review granted, 10/11/22, reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity

District 1 means business. Not long ago, it reversed an order denying A.G.’s claim that his no-contest plea to grounds for a TPR was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the circuit court neglected to explain the potential dispositions to him. It remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. There, the State simply presented a transcript showing that 10 months before the plea, the circuit court explained potential dispositions to A.G. The circuit court said the State met its burden. On appeal after remand, the court of appeals says no way!

State v. A.T., 2022AP544, 6/28/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Guys, if you have unprotected sex, call or text your partner after. And “Wisconsin law does not require courts to consider race or culture when determining whether to terminate parental rights.” Opinion, ¶29. Those are the two main takeaways from this TPR opinion.

State v. S.A., 2021AP1917-1919, 7/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The State petitioned to terminate Sarah’s parental rights to her three children because she had failed to assume parental responsibility and her kids were in continuing need of protective services.  According to the State, Sarah had trouble controlling her anger and mental health. She left her kids home alone, and she and the children’s father had a history of domestic violence.

State v. Ricky Rodriguez, 2021AP2053-Cr, 6/14/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Rodriguez was convicted of two misdemeanors and placed on probation in early 2017. a few months later, he committed two felonies and was sentenced to prison. His probation for the misdemeanors was revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 months in jail consecutive to any other sentence. In his pro se appeal, he argued that his sentence after revocation cannot, as a matter of law, run consecutive to the sentence for his felonies based on Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 60, 230 N.W.2d 126 (1975). The court of appeals says that it can.

State v. Smolarek, 6/16/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Smolarek was involved in a motorcycle accident. After allegedly admitting that he had smoked marijuana much earlier that day, an officer arrested him. A blood test showed that he had been driving under the influence of THC. Smolarek moved to suppress arguing that the officer got his story wrong. He admitted that he had smoked marijuana after the accident. So the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him.

Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Board, 2021AP373, District 4, 6/9/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This lengthy, unpublished decision doesn’t bear directly on issues arising in day-to-day criminal litigation, but we note it here because its topic—compensation from the state to wrongly convicted innocent persons—may be of interest.

County v. Buffalo v. Kevin J. Rich, 2020AP1526, 6/7/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejected all three of Rich’s challenges to his OWI 1st conviction. It held that the deputy did have reasonable suspicion to stop Rich’s jeep and to expand the stop to require field sobriety tests. It also held that even though Rich gave six breath samples, he consented to and completed just one breath test.

State v. Q.S., 2022AP420-421, 6/14/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal concerns whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it it held that the termination of Q.S.’s parental rights to his three children was in their best interests.  The court of appeals held that the circuit court applied all of §48.426(3)‘s “best interests of the child” factors. Q.S. simply didn’t like how heavily the circuit court weighed unfavorable evidence. 

State v. Travis R. Braly, 2021AP2086-CR, District 4, 6/9/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Braly challenges the stop of the car he was driving, arguing it was clearly erroneous for the circuit court to find that the officer who stopped him had reasonable suspicion to believe he had not stopped prior to entering an intersection as required by § 346.46(1) and (2)(c). The circuit court rejects the claim based on the officer’s testimony, the squad camera footage, and the circuit court’s findings.