On Point blog, page 50 of 87
Obstructing – Complaint, Probable Cause; Self-representation
State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply
The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,
Attempted Possession of Improvised Explosive Device, § 941.31(2)(b): Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Dennis C. Strong, 2011 WI App 43; for Strong: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence that Strong possessed pails filled with methyl ethyl ketone (i.e., acetone, or paint thinner), with bare electrical wires running through the pails and attached to a wall outlets, held sufficient to establish guilt for possessing improvised explosive device, § 941.31(2)(b). The court rejects the arguments that the material was flammable rather than “explosive,”
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion; Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
State v. Tushar S. Achha, 2009AP1977-CR, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion
Failure to preserve a challenge to trial counsel’s performance via postconviction motion waives the issue on appeal, ¶19.
Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to negate entrapment defense rejected,
Counsel: Request for Substitute – Effective Assistance (Disclosure of Communications, et al.); Double Jeopardy: Bail Jumping
State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Request for New Counsel
An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant requests change of counsel,
Counsel – Waiver; Plea-Withdrawal – Issuance of Worthless Check – Elements
State v. Kenneth B. Bonner, 2010AP1414-CR, District 1, 12/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bonner: Dennis P. Coffey; case activity; Bonner BiC; State Resp.
Counsel – Waiver
The trial court’s waiver colloquy omitted two required components: assurance that the defendant made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and was aware of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation,
Miranda – Custody; Lesser Included Offense Instruction
State v. Tony Lamont Jackson, 2010AP351-CR, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Hans P. Koesser; Jackson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Miranda – Custody
Initially treated at the scene of a shooting by the police as a witness rather than suspect, Jackson voluntarily accompanied the police to the station to continue providing information,
State v. Michael S. Henderson, Milwaukee Co. Circ. Ct. No. 10CF1101
circuit court decision (Judge Richard Sankovitz); for Henderson: Paul A. Ksicinski, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Illegal Voting, § 12.13(1)(a) – Voting Rights Acts
Henderson is charged with illegal voting because he allegedly voted notwithstanding his status as a felon still under supervision (which would made him ineligible to vote). He raises as a defense the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 45 U.S.C. § 1973(a): the Act bars disenfranchisement “on account of race”
OWI – § 346.65(2), Second or Subsequent Offense: Out-of-State Administrative Non-Refusal (“Zero Tolerance”) Suspension
State v. Gerard W. Carter, 2010 WI 132, reversing 2009 WI App 156; for Carter: Craig M. Kuhary; State BiC; Carter Resp.; Reply
Prior DL suspension under Illinois’ “zero tolerance” law (which suspends or revokes operating privileges of drivers under legal drinking age with any alcohol concentration) satisfies § 343.307(1)(d) and therefore supports OWI enhancement,
§ 944.20(1)(a), Lewd & Lascivious
State v. Andrew J. Bolin, 2009AP2425-CR, District 4, 11/24/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication)
The crime of lewd and lascivious behavior applies to non-consensual as well as consensual acts with another.
¶9 The language at issue is unambiguous as applied to the facts in this case. The subsection prohibits “an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with knowledge that they are in the presence of others.” WIS.
Sex Offender Registration Requirement Where Homeless
State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2010 WI App 163, review granted 3/16/11; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Dinkins BiC; State Resp.; Reply
A prisoner subject to sex offender registration requirement, § 301.45, isn’t subject to criminal penalty for failing, on impending release, to notify authorities of his intended “residence” where he will be homeless.