On Point blog, page 45 of 87
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wilt: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity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.
Repeated Sexual Assault of Same Child, § 948.025(1)(a) – Mandatory Minimum Sentence – Jury Instructions
State v. Carlos G. Comas, 2010AP2687-CR, District 4, 9/29/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Comas: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Although Comas was charged with § 948.025(1)(a), repeated sexual assault of the same child by acts of sexual intercourse, the case was in effect tried under § 948.025(1)(ar) ,which requires acts of sexual intercourse or contact. Comas received a confinement term of 25 years,
Sexual Assault; Charging Document; Excited Utterances; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault.
¶23 In this case, the trial court properly determined that Echols’ shooting M.F. subsequent to the nonconsensual sexual contact constituted great bodily harm.
Fleeing, § 346.04(3): Elements; Instructions, “Law of the Case”: As Measure of State’s Proof – Harmless Error
State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2011 WI App 131 (recommended for publication); for Beamon: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; petition for review granted, 4/25/12
Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements
¶4 …. In State v. Sterzinger, 2002 WI App 171, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 925, 649 N.W.2d 677, this court separated the language of § 346.04(3) into segments: (1) No operator of a vehicle,
Illegal Possession Prescription Drug – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Troy A. Keys, 2011AP550-CR, District 3, 8/30/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keys: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held insufficient to support scienter element of illegal possession of prescription drug, § 450.11(7)(h). A pill container, container 2 Citalopram pills, were found on Keys’ coffee table The court rejects the State’s argument that the jury reasonably could have inferred Keys’