On Point: 11. Defense Wins

State v. Brittanie Jo Palaia, 2016AP467-CR, 12/30/17, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case history (including briefs)

Here we have the latest twist on State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, which held that an officer who knows only that a moving vehicle is registered to a person with a revoked license has reasonable suspicion for a stop.

County of Fond du Lac v. Stuart D. Muche, 2016 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)

Muche threw a high school graduation party  for his son and (gasp!) some of the underage guests brought beer to it. Sheriff’s deputies showed up and cited Muche for violation of Fond du Lac County’s social host ordinance, which resulted in a forfeiture of $1,000. This decision dismisses the forfeiture and, according to the Journal Sentinel, could require changes to “dozens of social host ordinances aimed at combatting underage drinking.” In short, this decision is SCOW bait.

State v. Samuel K. Dixon, 2015AP2307-CR. 10/6/16; District 1 (per curiam; uncitable); case activity (including briefs)

You may not cite this per curiam opinion as precedent in any Wisconsin court, but happily you can bask in Dixon’s victory. The court of appeals wisely held that his 5-minute, friendly conversation with a “thicker black female” at 6:00 a.m. on 29th and Lisbon in Milwaukee did not constitute reasonable suspicion of prostitution-related activity.

State v. David L. Tarlo, 2016 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)

When’s the last time you saw a defense win on a restitution issue? This child porn case addresses the vexing problem of circuit courts awarding restitution though the victim failed to prove that her losses were “a result of a crime considered at sentencing” as required by Wis. Stat. §973.20(14)(a). 

State v. D.C.M., 2016AP1205-FT, 10/5/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The stay of a dispositional order in a juvenile case cannot be lifted unless the parties and the court follow the notice and hearing requirements of §938.34(16).  They failed to do so in this case, so the court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s order lifting the stay on D.C.M.’s sex offender registration.

State v. Gary Abdullah Salaam, 2014AP2666-CR & 2667-CR, 9/13/2016, District 1 (Not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Salaam raises four claims challenging his convictions, at jury trial, of recklessly endangering safety, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of witness intimidation. The court affirms as to the first two counts but finds insufficient evidence as to the witness intimidation charges.

State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, petition for review granted 1/18/2017, reversed, 2017 WI 104; case activity (including briefs)

This decision is important to anyone who litigates claims for plea withdrawal under § 971.08(2) because it helps clarify the law in two ways. First, it provides two examples of a circuit court’s failure to comply with § 971.08(1)(c)’s requirement that the defendant be warned about the immigration consequences of a plea. Second, it explains what a defendant must allege to make a sufficient showing that his or her plea is likely to result in deportation.

State v. Paul R. Vanderlinden, 2015AP901-CR, District 3, 8/30/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vanderlinden was convicted of OWI 2nd and driving with a PAC 2nd. An officer had stopped Vanderlinden’s car because two witnesses had reported him drinking beer and leaving the theater with a beer in his pocket. According to the court of appeals, this did not amount to reasonable suspicion of OWI.

Oconto County v. Jonathan E. Van Ark, 2015AP1415, 8/23/16; District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Van Ark was sitting in his parked pickup truck when a deputy approached him, smelled alcohol, saw his glossy, blood-shot eyes, and observed his slow, slurred speech.  A subsequent hospital blood draw indicated that Van Ark had a .237 BAC. The State charged him with OWI and operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration and moved for directed verdicts on both counts. The circuit court denied a directed verdict on the OWI charge, but granted it on the PAC charge. The court of appeals reversed based on WIS JI–CRIMINAL 2660A.

Walker Whatley v. Dushan Zatecky, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2534, 2016 WL 4269805, 8/15/16

The maximum penalty for Whatley’s drug possession conviction was dramatically increased—from 2-to-8 years to 20-to-50 years—under a now-repealed Indiana penalty enhancer for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a “youth program center,” defined as a “building or structure that on a regular basis provides recreational, vocational, academic, social, or other programs” for youth. (Sound familiar? Sure it does: see §§ 961.01(22) and 961.49(1m)(b)5.) On habeas review, the Seventh Circuit holds that the statute’s failure to provide an objective standard for determining what “regular” means makes the statute unconstitutionally vague, so Whatley is entitled to resentencing under the non-enhanced penalty scheme.