On Point blog, page 71 of 262
Defense win! Dangerousness in ch. 51 recommitment had to be proved, not “assumed”
Winnebago County v. L. F.-G., 2019AP2010, 5/20/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is an appeal of the extension of the commitment of someone the court calls “Emily.” Following our supreme court’s decision in Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶19, 386 Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509, the court of appeals reverses because the county didn’t introduce any evidence that Emily would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.
COA clarifies (?) standard for waiving transcript fees for indigents
State v. Chase M.A. Boruch, 2018AP152, 5/19/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Boruch, pro se, filed a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion raising a slew of claims related to his conviction, at jury trial, for first-degree intentional homicide. He’d already had an 809.30 postconviction motion and direct appeal (with counsel). He claimed, as a “sufficient reason” for not raising these new claims the first time around, that his postconviction/appellate counsel had been ineffective. The circuit court denied the motion and also refused to waive fees to produce the transcripts Boruch would need to appeal this denial. This is an appeal only of the refusal to waive those fees.
Global sentence under the max was neither unduly harsh nor unconscionable
State v. Paris Markese Chambers, 2019AP17-18-CR, 5/12/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged 17 year old Chambers with 8 crimes involving car theft, damage to property, and bail jumping across two cases. His maximum sentence exposure was 29.5 years and a $75,000 fine. The trial court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years of initial confinement and 13.5 years extended supervision. On appeal Chambers argued that his global sentence was harsh and unconscionable.
COA rejects claim that court terminated parental rights due to father’s learning disability
State v. J.W., 2020AP161, 5/12/20, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of his TPR proceeding J.W. stipulated to the “failure to assume parental responsibility” reason for terminating his parental rights. On appeal he argued that at the trial court erroneously determined that he was unlikely to meet the conditions of return due to a learning disability.
Yet another challenge to applying the change in continuing CHIPS grounds to pre-amendment cases
Brown County DHS v. H.P., 2019AP1324 & 2019AP1325, District 3, 5/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case involves another challenge to the application of the new version of § 48.415(2)(a)3. in cases where the CHIPS order was entered before the effective date of the amendments. As in Dane County DHS v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5, and Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, slip op. recommended for publication (WI App May 13, 2020), the court of appeals rejects the challenges.
Detention of juvenile to investigate car crash didn’t amount to custody requiring Miranda warnings
State v. D.R.C., 2019AP1155, District 2, 5/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police detained, initially handcuffed, patted down, and then questioned D.R.C. about his involvement in a car crash from which he had fled. The court of appeals holds the officers’ actions were part of an investigatory Terry stop and didn’t amount to custody requiring that D.R.C. be given Miranda warnings before being questioned.
Witness’s blurted comment during testimony did not warrant mistrial
State v. Kieuta Z, Perry, 2019AP270-CR, 5/12/20, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Perry with armed robbery and 1st degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon both as a party to a crime, along with possession of a firearm by a felon. During cross-exam a witness blurted out “Didn’t [Perry] shoot somebody in the head before he shot me? That’s what I heard.” Defense counsel moved to strike and then later for a mistrial.
Defense win: No probable cause for PBT request
State v. Jeffrey I. Quitko, 2019AP200-CR, District 3, 5/12/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Quitko’s motion to suppress evidence obtained following his traffic stop for speeding violation should have been granted because law enforcement lacked probable cause to request that he submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT).
Claim for ineffective cross-examination of retrograde extrapolation expert fails
State v. Gary R. Schumacher, 2019AP1261-CR, District 4, 5/7/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schumacher was convicted of OWI with a prohibited alcohol content in connection with an accident at 8:45 p.m. His blood was drawn at 10:56 p.m., and tests showed a BAC of .171, well above his legal limit of 0.08. The sole issue on appeal was whether Schumacher’s trial counsel had adequately cross-examined Kristin Drewieck, a chemist with the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene about her estimates of Schumacher’s BAC at 8:45 p.m.
Defense win: Equitable tolling doesn’t apply to statute of limitation for filing forfeiture action
Town of Waterford v. Christopher Pye, 2019AP737, 5/6/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects the municipality’s argument that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the two-year statute of limitation for bringing a forfeiture action.