On Point blog, page 44 of 87
CCW, § 941.23 – Facially Constitutional
State v. Tiffany Michelle Flowers, 2011AP1757-CR, District 1, 12/13/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Flowers: Daniel A. Necci; case activity
Conviction for carrying a concealed weapon (gun in a purse, in a car), § 941.23, upheld against second amendment challenge to facial validity. Court rejects strict scrutiny test. (The statute was amended by 2011 Wis. Act 35, §§ 50-55, to allow among other things conceal-carry for licensees;
OWI Enhancer – Collateral Attack
State v. Jason L. Decorah, 2011AP662-CR, District 4, 12/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Decorah: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity
Collateral attack on a prior OWI used as a current enhancer, on the ground Decorah didn’t understand the range of penalties therefore didn’t validly waive counsel. Decorah prevailed below, and the court affirms on this State’s appeal:
¶3 Decorah’s collateral attack is based on his contention that,
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2010AP1192-CR, rev. granted 12/1/11
on review of unpublished decision; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post
Sufficiency of Evidence (Possession with Intent to Deliver) – Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review /
Stipulation (Offense Element) – Right to Jury Trial
Issues (from Smith’s PFR):
1. The Trial Evidence Was Insufficient to Support Smith’s Conviction of Possessing a Controlled Substance (THC) With Intent to Deliver,
Evidence – Admissibility of Blood Test Results
State v. Michael Perzel, III, 2011AP1190-CR, District 4, 12/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perzel: Waring R. Fincke; case activity
Blood test results are admissible without expert testimony to reflect a person’s bac at the time in question (in this OWI-related prosecution, at the time Perzel was driving), so long as the blood was drawn by a person enumerated in § 343.305(5)(d). One such person is a “registered nurse.”
Statute of Limitations – Reopened OWI-1st; Excited Utterance
City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity
The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,
OWI-Repeater – Challenge to Prior Conviction
State v. Jeffrey Steinhorst, 2011AP1360-CR, District 4, 11/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity
Steinhorst made a prima facie showing that he did not validly waive counsel in a prior OWI case; therefore, he is entitled to a hearing at which the State must prove proper waiver, by clear and convincing evidence, else the prior conviction may not be used to enhance his current case.
State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2010AP2514-CR, District 2, 11/16/11
court of appeals certification, affirmed 2012 WI 73; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity
Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2)
Issue certified: Whether the court of appeals’ prior interpretation of § 948.31(2) to require “initial permission” from the parent should be overruled, State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis.
PBT Admissibility – OWI, Sufficiency of Evidence
City of Mequon v. Michael R. Wilt, 2011AP931, District 2, 11/9/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wilt: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity
Because the trial court in this bench trial did not rely on the breath test result in finding Wilt guilty of OWI, therefore his argument that the PBT result was inadmissible need not be reached, ¶¶16-17. As to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction absent the test result:
¶23 Proof of impairment was sufficient and established by clear,
Habeas – Concurrent Sentence Doctrine
Matthew Steffes v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-3317, 11/4/11
seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief on review of 2006AP1633-CR
The “concurrent sentence doctrine” – which “allows appellate courts to decline to review a conviction carrying a concurrent sentence when one ‘concurrent’ conviction has been found valid,” Cheeks v. Gaetz, 571 F.3d 680, 684-85 (7th Cir.2009) – doesn’t apply here in view of a separate assessment and the potential to affect parolability:
…
First-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficiency of Evidence; Evidence – Habit, § 904.06(1)
State v. Thomas C. Niesen, 2010AP1864-CR, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Niesen: James A. Rebholz; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction § 940.01(1), court rejecting argument that State failed to prove that Niesen inflicted the fatal knife wound. (Niesen made certain damaging admissions; he met the description of the man last seen with the victim; his sperm was found in the ¶¶2-21.