On Point blog, page 40 of 53
OWI – collateral attack on prior uncounseled conviction; prima facie showing
State v. Scott B. Bohlinger, 2013 WI App 39; case activity
Bohlinger made a prima facie showing that two prior OWI convictions were invalid because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel due to his limited cognitive capabilities. The circuit court concluded he had not made such a showing because he did not allege any deficiency in the colloquies addressing the waiver of counsel in the earlier cases.
Probation search declared unreasonable; forfeiting issue could be ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell, 2012AP1307-CR, District 2, 3/7/13 (not recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/20/13. Case activity.
This case concerns a probation agent’s search of the defendant’s computers. Following a conviction for 2 counts of animal cruelty, a court placed the defendant on probation and imposed a condition that he not own or possess a computer.
Restitution – “causal nexus” between crime and disputed damage
State v. Thomas G. Felski, 2012AP1115-CR, District 2, 1/3/13
Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Felski was convicted of violating Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 110.05 (criminalized by virtue of § 100.20(2)) for failing to have a written contract covering some remodeling projects. Evidence at trial focused on construction of a garage, but Felski also worked on an addition to the house not covered by a written contract.
Defense win! Insufficient evidence of dangerousness under any of the 5 standards of dangerousness
Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:
¶7 As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,
Complaint – Adequate Notice; Jury Instructions – Authorizing Guilty Verdict on Speculation
State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity
Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection
Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,
Other-Acts Evidence – State’s Failure to Identify Specifics
State v. Joel Steinhauer, 2012AP189-CR, District 3, 11/27/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
When the State fails to articulate the specific other acts testimony it seeks to adduce, the trial court acts within its discretion in ruling the testimony inadmissible without performing the 3-step analysis of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771–73, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).
Habeas Procedure – Filing Deadline – “Mailbox Rule”
Elliot D. Ray v. Clements, 7th Cir No. 11-3228, 11/19/12
seventh circuit decision, appeal following remand in 592 F.3d 793 (7th Cir 2010) (summarized in prior post)
… (W)e hold that in cases where the pro se prisoner’s post-conviction motion is not received, the petitioner must submit a sworn statement and some evidence to support his claim that he timely delivered the filing to a prison official,
Vagrancy (Begging), § 947.02(4) – Vague and Overbroad
State v. Bradley S. Johnson, Outagamie Co. Circ. Ct. No. 12CM495
circuit court decision; case activity
Panhandling prosecution under § 947.02(4) is dismissed with prejudice because the vagrancy statute is unconstitutional under first amendment analysis: panhandling (“begging”) is a form of protected speech and its criminalization under § 947.02(4) is fatally vague and overbroad. State v. Starks, 51 Wis.2d 256, 186 N.W.2d 245 (1971) (loitering statute unconstitutional as providing insufficient notice of prohibited conduct,
Warrantless Entry – Curtilage – Attached Garage
State v. Michael C. Christofferson, 2012AP571-CR, District 3, 10/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The officer didn’t develop probable cause (for OWI arrest; Christofferson was getting out of his car when the officer first saw him) until after illegal entry of the attached garage, therefore the ensuing arrest was unlawful.
¶10 Under the Fourth Amendment, police are prohibited from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home absent probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Nicole Harris v. Sheryl Thompson, 7th Cir No. 12-1088, 10/18/12
seventh circuit decision (html) (90-page pdf download: here), granting habeas relief in 904 N.E.2d 1077 (Ill. App. 2009)
A significant decision in several respects – not least, attorney performance – that a summary post cannot hope to capture, save broad highlights. Executive summary: Harris was convicted of killing her 4-year-old son Jaquari, against a defense of accidental death (self-strangulation with an elastic band). The defense had potential,