On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Mark A. Gierczak, 2012AP965-CR, District 4, 12/13/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

For purposes of obstructing an officer § 946.41, “officer” includes someone with authority “to take another into custody,” and therefore includes a correctional officer at a county jail, ¶¶11-12. The court of appeals thus rejects Gierczak’s challenge to the factual basis for his obstructing plea where as a county jail inmate,

State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2012AP1426, District 4, 12/6/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 6/13/13; reversed, 2013 WI 106; case activity

A circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge, § 343.305, after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI, State v. Brooks,

State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent 

Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:

¶16      … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’”  Artic,

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity

Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection 

Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,

State v. Tony J. Lalicata, 2012 WI App 138 (recommended for publication); case activity

Probation is not an available disposition under § 948.02(1)(b) (child sexual assault). By mandating that “the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence” with a confinement portion of at least 25 years for that offense, § 939.616 forecloses the possibility of probation:

¶14      …  We conclude instead that § 939.616(1r) unambiguously prohibits probation,

State v. Bradley S. Johnson, Outagamie Co. Circ. Ct. No. 12CM495

circuit court decision; case activity

Panhandling prosecution under § 947.02(4) is dismissed with prejudice because the vagrancy statute is unconstitutional under first amendment analysis: panhandling (“begging”) is a form of protected speech and its criminalization under § 947.02(4) is fatally vague and overbroad. State v. Starks, 51 Wis.2d 256, 186 N.W.2d 245 (1971) (loitering statute unconstitutional as providing insufficient notice of prohibited conduct,

State v. Calvin L. Brown, 2012 WI 139 (recommended for publication); case activity

A guilty plea colloquy need not include an explanation of ptac liability when the defendant directly committed the crime:

¶13      …  Although the trial court did not explain that, by directly committing the La Quinta robbery, Brown was “concerned” in its commission as defined by the party to a crime statute,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearing.

Brefka filed a request for refusal hearing outside the 10-day time limit in § 343.305(9)(a)4. Does a court possess competence to extend that deadline? No dice, according to the court of appeals: “Section 343.305(9)(a)4. specifically mandates that if the request for a hearing is not received within the ten-day period, 

State v. Thomas E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 137 (recommended for publication); case activity

After performing an HGN test, which exhibited 6 out of 6 indicia of impairment, Schmidt was arrested for OWI. At the ensuing trial, he asserted diabetes as a possible cause for the HGN result. The trial court ordered, as a condition of his testifying to this effect, that he submit to an HGN test outside the presence of the jury.

State v. Gary M. Hemmingway, 2012 WI App 133; case activity

Stalking,  § 940.32(2m)(a), which previously survived overbreadth and vagueness challenges based on rights to travel and equal protection, State v. Ruesch, 214 Wis. 2d 548, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1997), now withstands a free-speech challenge: The statute isn’t a facially overbroad regulation of protected speech, in that the first amendment doesn’t immunize intentional conduct aimed at causing serious distress or fear of bodily harm.