On Point blog, page 94 of 263
The postconviction DNA testing statute: hard to understand and harder to satisfy
State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2017AP2452-CR, 12/11/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2017, conservative activists on SCOW overruled a 12-year-old, unanimous opinion in order to overwrite the plain language of §974.07(7), Wisconsin’s postconviction DNA testing statute. They made it virtually impossible for a defendant to get this type of testing. See State v. Denny, 2017 WI 17 and our post about it. This court of appeals decision toes the line. It may be summed as: Let the conviction stand.
Admission of paperwork regarding blood draw wasn’t prejudicial
State v. Kristy L. Malnory, 2018AP216-CR, District 4, 12/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At Malnory’s trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol content, her lawyer failed to object to the admission of the “Blood/Urine Analysis” form completed at the time of her blood draw. She argues this was deficient performance because the form is testimonial, and admitting it without the testimony of the person who completed it violates her confrontation rights. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but even if that’s true there was no prejudice.
Sentence modification, cost collection claims rejected
State v. Shawn A. Hodgkins, 2017AP1799-CR, District 2, 12/12/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
Hodgkins objected to DOC collecting costs from him while he was in prison because the circuit court ordered the costs to be collected while he was on a term of consecutive probation. He also sought a “new factor” sentence modification. Alas, it was all in vain.
Court had competency to act despite failure to hold timely jury trial on Chapter 51 recommitment
Winnebago County v. A.A., 2018AP1505-FT, 12/12/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A.A.’s commitment was set to expire on March 28th. Two days before his March 22 recommitment hearing he demanded a jury trial. The court gave him one on April 12th. A.A. argued that the trial court lost competency to act when it failed to hold the recommitment trial before the original commitment expired.
Police encounter with defendant in store vestibule wasn’t a seizure
State v. William J. Smith, 2018AP320-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The encounter between police and Smith wasn’t a seizure, so the search of Smith wasn’t the fruit of an illegal seizure.
Postconviction motion didn’t allege sufficient facts to justify hearing
State v. Howard D. Davis, 2017AP942-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Davis claimed trial counsel was ineffective in various ways, and that a juror may have introduced extraneous information into deliberations. The trial court denied his claims without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms.
Equivocating over whether to take a breath test, then agreeing to it, counts as a refusal
State v. Stuart W. Topping, 2018AP318, 2/6/18, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including brief)
You don’t see this very often. Topping, represented by counsel, filed an initial brief. The State never responded. That might have been cause for summary reversal. But here Topping’s challenge to the circuit court’s finding that he refused to submit to a breath test after his arrest for OWI failed even though it was unopposed
FST results provided probable cause for OWI arrest
Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.
Due process challenge fails; counties and courts needn’t specify dangerousness standard justifying Chapter 51 commitment
Milwaukee County v. T.L.R., 2018AP1131, 12/4/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity
Here’s an issue of first impression for SCOW. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D. Wis. 1972) established procedural and substantive due process rights for persons undergoing mental commitments. One of those rights is the right to particularized notice of the basis for detention, including, the legal standard upon which the person is detained. Id. at 1092. T.L.R didn’t receive that notice.
CHIPS proceedings not precluded by prior JIPS proceedings
Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate.