On Point: 11. Defense Wins

State v. Kimberly D. Rowe, 2022AP2122-CR, 4/22/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA considered when a collection of liquor bottles behind the counter of what appeared to be a bar becomes “intoxicating liquor” for which a license is required to possess for intended sales.  Because the State did not prove the identity of the liquid in the bottles or submit the liquid for chemical testing, the COA reversed Kimberly Rowe’s conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor with intent to sell without a license or permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 125.66(1).

City of Platteville v. Travis Jon Knautz, 2024AP1291 & 1292, 12/5/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In this drunk driving forfeiture case, the city appeals an order granting Knautz’s motion to suppress all of the evidence that police obtained after an investigatory traffic stop. The COA affirms, concluding that the city failed to show that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Erlinger v. United States, USSC No. 23-370, June 21, 2024, vacating United States v. Erlinger, 77 F.4th 617 (7th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

Whether offenses committed on three “occasions different from one another” for purposes of federal Armed Career Criminal Act must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Robert M. Schueller, 2023AP1755-CR, 6/20/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals holds that advances in PTSD treatment constitute a new factor, where the sentencing court expressly relied on its understanding that Schueller’s PTSD was uncurable in determining his risk to the public and the term of his incarceration.

State v. Michael Gene Wiskowski, 2024 WI 23, 6/18/24, reversing and remanding an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Community caretaking does not allow police to continue seizure after officer resolves purpose for stop unless reasonable suspicion or probable cause developed.  Three justices question continuing validity of Wisconsin’s community caretaking precedent in light of SCOTUS’s decision in Caniglia v. Strom.

Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16. 

State v. Megan E. Zeien, 2023AP1787-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you’ve ever wondered whether you have a Bangert claim concerning a circuit court’s failure to “ascertain personally whether a factual basis exists to support [your client’s] plea,” this unpublished but citable decision is worth a read. Unfortunately, the decision is a bit unclear about how exactly the state may seek to establish that Zeien’s pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at an evidentiary hearing. See Op., ¶¶19, 22.

K.W. & D.W. v. S.L., 2023AP1582, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The summary judgment issue here turned on one simple question: did a genuine issue of fact exist as to whether S.L. (“Susan”) knew or could have reasonably discovered the whereabouts of her son (Alex) during the relevant period of alleged abandonment? Upon consideration of Susan’s multiple affidavits and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Susan, as the non-moving party, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment on grounds.

State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2023AP460, 9/20/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a nice case to know, both for its careful, thorough analysis of a common ch. 51 problem–commitments based entirely or extensively on hearsay–and its collection of other cases analyzing the same issue. The sole witness at D.E.S. (“Dennis”)’s extension hearing was a Dr. Anderson, who had witnessed none of the behaviors she relied on to conclude that Dennis was dangerous, instead reading them from his institutional records. Over objection, the trial court relied on them anyway. The court of appeals now reverses the commitment because absent the hearsay, there was no evidence tending to show that Dennis would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.