On Point blog, page 95 of 262
Another garage hot pursuit case
State v. Jonalle L. Ferraro, 2018AP498, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
As in Palmersheim just last week, here we have another successor to Weber from the 2016 term – an officer follows a driver (or recent driver) into his or her garage to arrest.
Being slumped over in driver’s seat in running car with odor of intoxicants on breath, red and glassy eyes, slurred speech, unexplained injuries, slow movements created probable cause to arrest
State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause.
Failure to raise issue in circuit court forfeits it on appeal
Monroe County v. B.L., 2018AP694, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.L. argues on appeal that the doctor who initiated his emergency detention could not also be one of the examiners appointed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)1.. The court does not address the argument, because B.L. raises it for the first time on appeal.
No error in granting summary judgment in TPR case as to one period of abandonment
Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2. The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate.
Summary judgment in TPR case upheld
Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2.
Failure to object during sentencing hearing to court’s consideration of information means the issue is forfeited
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)
At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.
Quasi-anonymous tip about drunk driving justified stop, despite lack of bad driving
State v. Emily J. Mays, 2018AP571-CR, District 2, 11/7/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court found the stop of Mays’s car was unlawful because the officer’s testimony and the squad car video showed that, during the time the officer was following Mays, her driving didn’t provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to believe Mays was intoxicated. The court of appeals reverses, holding that the 911 call that led the officer to follow Mays provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Failure to develop defendant’s testimony, object to hearsay didn’t prejudice defense
State v. Akim A. Brown, 2017AP1332-CR, District 1, 11/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brown, charged with second degree sexual assault of L.S., testified their sexual encounter was consensual. He argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit from him certain testimony that would have helped show the encounter was consensual and for failing to object to testimony about L.S.’s prior consistent statements. The court of appeals concludes counsel’s shortcomings didn’t prejudice Brown’s defense.
Officer “briskly walking” up driveway was in hot pursuit
State v. Steven D. Palmersheim, 2018AP746, 10/31/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is the state’s appeal of the circuit court’s grant of a suppression motion. A motorist called the police saying another car on the road was wildly swerving; the caller stayed with the swerving vehicle until it stopped on a residential street. When a police officer arrived in response to the car, the caller told him the driver, Palmersheim, had gotten out of the car and urinated in the street.
Judge’s answer to jury question in absence of defendant and counsel was harmless error
State v. Deshawn Harold Jewell, 2017AP2503-CR, 10/30/18. District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jewell claims that he is innocent of armed robbery, so his identity was an issue at trial. During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court for the “six pack” of pictures of people who appeared in the police photo array that the victim used to identify him. They also asked a question about how the photos were numbered. Jewell and his lawyer were not present and had no input into the answer.