On Point blog, page 47 of 266
Need to make immediate correction to illegal sentence wasn’t a new factor
State v. Jimmie L. Blount, 2021AP1943-CR, District 2, 6/8/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At one sentencing hearing on two different cases, the circuit court imposed on one case a 4-year bifurcated prison sentence—2 years’ confinement and 2 years’ extended supervision—and on the other ordered 3 years of probation. The court said the probation would be concurrent to the ES on the first case, which would’ve added another year onto the “global” disposition of 5 years. Both lawyers pointed out the probation has to be either concurrent with or consecutive to the total bifurcated sentence, so the judge ordered the probation to be consecutive, thus increasing the “global” disposition to 7 years. The judge’s need to correct its initial error didn’t amount to a new factor justifying sentence modification.
Lower BAC result wasn’t a new factor meriting sentencing modification
State v. Rebecca Sue Ferraro, 2021AP1654-CR, District 2, 6/8/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ferraro pled to and was sentenced for OWI, third offense, before the blood alcohol test result of her blood draw was available. At sentencing the preliminary breath test result was bandied about as one of the aggravating factors. A few days after sentencing, the BAC result arrived. Turns out it was lower than the PBT. That is not a new sentencing factor because it’s not highly relevant to the sentence imposed; and even if it was, the circuit court properly concluded it didn’t merit sentence modification.
Not funny, but not judicial bias, either
State v. Justin M. Church, 2021AP751-CR, District 3, 6/1/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At a pretrial hearing the circuit court made what the court of appeals characterized as an “ill-advised and troubling” attempt at humor (¶26), but it didn’t demonstrate that the circuit court prejudged the sentence it was going to impose or otherwise demonstrate a serious risk of actual bias.
Defense TPR win – trial court answered the wrong question in deciding potential adoptive resource shouldn’t be disclosed
State v. M.S.H., 2022AP369, 6/1/2022, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court found M.S.H. to be an unfit parent on summary judgment. Turning to the dispositional phase, the court granted the state’s request to conceal from M.S.H. the identity of the person who the state considered likely to adopt her child.
COA holds parent not prejudiced by TPR attorney on ordered services
State v. S.L.W., 2021AP1736 & 1737, 6/1/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.LW. appeals the termination of parental rights to her children. She argues her attorney failed to inform the jury of court-ordered services the Milwaukee County child-services agency didn’t provide. The court of appeals holds that if counsel performed deficiently in this regard, it didn’t affect the jury trial because the county did make a reasonable effort to provide the services, and because there was an independent ground for termination. (UPDATE: the original post said S.L.W. didn’t challenge this second ground on appeal; the comment below informs us that she did.)
COA rejects challenge to best-interest determination in TPR
State v. S.R., 2022AP293, 294 & 295, 6/1/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her children. A jury found her unfit on two grounds: continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. She doesn’t challenge these findings on appeal; she instead attacks the circuit court’s determination that terminating her parental rights was in the children’s best interest.
COA upholds waiver of juvenile into adult court
State v. D.J.L., 2021AP436, 5/10/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
The State charged 17-year-old “David” with exposing himself to two girls (5 and 9) and sexually assaulting the older one. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court’s decision to waive him into adult court. The court of appeals held that the circuit court (1) appropriately applied §938.18(5)’s waiver criteria, (2) had the discretion to reject an expert opinion opposing waiver, and (3) did not base its decision on the fact that D.J.L. would get a lighter sentence if he stayed in juvenile court.
Blue light over rear license plate provided reasonable suspicion for traffic stop
State v. Joshua John Hansen, 2021AP1006 & 2021AP1620-CR, District 4, 5/5/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A blue light illuminating the rear license plate is an apparent equipment violation and thus justified the stop of Hansen’s car. Once stopped, the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate whether Hansen was operating while intoxicated.
Statute permitting closed circuit audiovisual testimony of a child is still constitutional
State v. Ryan L. Bessert, 2021AP1062-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly applied § 972.11(2m)(a) under the circumstances of this case when allowing the complaining child witness to testify via closed circuit television, so Bessert’s right to confrontation was not violated. In addition, assuming without deciding that Bessert’s right to a public trial was violated because the courthouse doors were locked when the circuit court issued its verdict, the court employed an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation by timely re-announcing the verdicts in open court.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective in OWI/PAC prosecution
State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer, 2020AP1406-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kothbauer challenges his trial lawyer’s representation in a prosecution for operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient or, even if he was, the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.