On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Christopher Antonje Tek, 2021AP1112-Cr, 3/31/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

About 45 seconds into a traffic stop, Officer Rocha placed Tek in handcuffs and continued his investigation of a possible OWI.  Ten minutes later, Rocha took Tek to jail and arrested him. Tek argued that he was arrested–without probable cause–when Rocha cuffed him.  The court of appeals disagreed. It held that Rocha had reasonable suspicion to investigate a possible crime, and his use of handcuffs did not transform Tek’s detention into an arrest.

State v. Richard Brian Lopez, 2020AP108-CR, 3/29/2022, District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lopez was convicted of battering his girlfriend, “Margaret,” with whom he had children. Before trial, the DA turned over photos depicting the bruising on Margaret’s face.  But at trial, it surprised Lopez with a second set of photos showing the progression of her bruising. The defense objected. The circuit court refused to exclude the second set based on harmless error. The photos only depicted what Margaret and police described in their testimony.  The court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Michael J. Leighton, 2021AP1949-cr, 3/30/22, District 2 (not recommended for publication; case activity (including briefs)

In 2018, the State charged Leighton with misdemeanor theft and fraudulent use of a credit card, both as repeaters.  In 2020, he asked the DA for “prompt disposition” of his case per §971.11. Receiving no response, he moved for dismissal, which the court granted without prejudice. On appeal, he says dismissal should have been with prejudice.  The court of appeals disagreed due to the victim’s rights.

State v. Alec D. Alford, 2020AP2072-CR, District 2, 3/23/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Dismissal with prejudice for failing to comply with the time limit under the intrastate detainer statute isn’t an “acquittal on the merits” under § 939.71 and thus doesn’t bar filing new charges based on the same course of conduct.

Portage County v. D.A., 2021AP1683, 2021AP1685, 2021AP1686, District 4, 3/24/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 21AP1683)

D.A. (“David”) raises various challenges to the finding his three children are in need of protection or services and to the dispositional orders. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2021AP267, 3/22/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 6/22/22, reversed, 2023 WI 57; habeas granted, No. 24-2980 case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Green with crimes including child sex trafficking. The alleged victim testified that another man had trafficked her, but that Green had driven her a particular encounter where a client had spit in her mouth. After the state rested, the defense called Green’s cousin–his name was Cousin–who said that he’d been the one to drive the girl that night. Cousin said he’d done the driving for a third man, Delmar, who’d asked for a ride in exchange for gas money and then invited the alleged victim and another man along for the ride. Cousin said he remembered the incident because when he picked the alleged victim up after the encounter, she had mentioned the mouth-spitting.

Jackson County DHHS v. K.M.G., 2021AP2159, 3/17/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Shortly after birth, V.J.T. was placed with a foster mom, a cousin of V.J.T.’s biological mother. Meanwhile, K.M.G., (the biological father) and T.T. (a biological grandfather) remained involved with V.J.T.  The grandfather even wanted to be the child’s guardian, a result a child psychologist supported. The circuit court nevertheless, terminated the father’s parental rights when V.J.T. was 2. The court of appeals affirms mostly because V.J.T. had been with a foster mother since birth.

State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2020AP1197-CR, District 3, 3/8/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that provides a nice primer about using specific instances of a witness’s to attack the witness’s character for truthfulness § 906.08(2), the court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously barred Strong from cross examining the complaining witness about a prior false statement she’d made to the police four months earlier in a different case.

State v. Michael Nelson, 2021AP1133-CR, 3/9/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Nelson, who values his right to bear arms, pled guilty to several crimes, including disorderly conduct and domestic violence.  As a condition of his probation, he was barred from possessing firearms. Postconviction, he claimed that his trial lawyer incorrectly advised him that “pleading to disorderly conduct could result in a temporary rather than permanent loss of his gun rights” and that the trial court erred in denying him a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Nancy Kindschy v. Brian Aish, 2022 WI App 17; case activity (including briefs), reversed by Kindschy v. Ash, 2024 WI 27.

Kindschy, a nurse practitioner at a Planned Parenthood clinic, obtained a harassment injunction against Aish, an anti-abortion protestor.  On appeal, Aish argued that his conduct did not qualify as “harassment” as defined by §813.125. He also claimed that his conduct had a “legitimate purpose”–he has a right to proselytize, and he was only trying to force Kindschy to leave her employment and shut down Planned Parenthood.