On Point blog, page 64 of 262
Defense win: Evidence insufficient to extend ch. 51 commitment
Jackson County v. W.G., 2020AP961, District 4, 11/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at a ch. 51 extension hearing is found wanting because it doesn’t establish dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.
Challenges to OWI arrest, jury instruction rejected
State v. Steven L. Sternitzky, 2019AP2185-CR, District 4, 11/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sternitzky argues he was arrested for OWI without probable cause and that his trial on the charge was marred by the judge’s instruction to the jury regarding the presumption of intoxication and automatic admissibility of chemical test results. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
“Lifetime” means “lifetime”….
State v. Jack Ray Zimmerman, Jr., 2020AP475, District 2, 11/4/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
….not “lifetime since January 1, 1989.”
Evidence at ch. 51 extension hearing sufficient to prove dangerousness, need for medication order
Portage County v. L.E., 2020Ap1239-FT, District 4, 10/29/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at L.E.’s ch. 51 extenstion hearing was sufficient to prove she was dangerous and was not competent to refuse medication.
Subsequent mitigating action didn’t extinguish factual basis for reckless endangering conviction
State v. Jonathan N. Reiher, 2019AP2321-CR, District 4, 10/29/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects the defendant’s claim that his pleas to reckless endangerment lacked a factual basis.
Trial counsel not ineffective for failing to challenge delay in search seized computer
State v. Brian A. Plencner, 2019AP517-CR, District 2, 10/28/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of evidence found on Plencner’s computer equipment based on the delay in analyzing the equipment.
Police didn’t unreasonably execute warrant for blood draw
State v. William Lawrence Bonfiglio, 2019AP188-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police immobilized Bonfiglio because they thought he was going to resist the blood draw authorized under the search warrant they had obtained. The court of appeals rejects Bonfiglio’s claims this constituted an unreasonable execution of the warrant.
Challenges to sexual assault conviction rejected
State v. Nathan J. Friar, 2019AP1578-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Friar challenges his conviction for sexual assault by use of force, claiming the circuit court erroneously admitted certain evidence and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. The court of appeals rejects his challenges.
COA clarifies when Chapter 51’s 72-hour clock begins for persons detained on criminal charges
Columbia County v. J.M.C., Jr., 2020AP1001, District 4, 10/22/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.M.C. was taken to jail on possible criminal charges. Two days later, the County filed a Chapter 51 petition for his commitment. Section 51.20(7) provides that the circuit court must hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of taking a person into custody under §51.20. The circuit court dismissed the petition for violation of the 72-hour rule, and the County appealed arguing that the circuit court erred in determining what triggered 72-hour clock triggered.
Challenges to implied consent law and refusal go nowhere
Village of Lomira v. Phillip N. Benninghoff, 2020AP31, District 4, 10/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Benninghoff tries to raise a bevy of challenges to the implied consent law and to the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw. His challenges are forfeited because he failed to file a timely request for a refusal hearing and, in any event, the arguments aren’t suitably developed or are foreclosed by State v. Levanduski, 2020 WI App 53.