On Point: 11. Defense Wins

State v. Rodney J. Ofte, 2021AP1302-CR, 4/21/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After the State charged Ofte with OWI 2nd, he moved for suppression because Deputy Paulson had interrogated him in the back of a locked squad car without a Miranda warning. The circuit court suppressed all evidence from that point on–Ofte’s statement and the results of his FSTs and breathalyzer test. The State appealed arguing that Ofte was not in custody for 5th Amendment purposes. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Eric D. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18; case activity (including briefs)

Police went looking for Bourgeois at a hotel because he might have been in possession of stolen handgun, he had PTSD, and he had a drug problem. At 2:00 a.m., despite a “do not disturb” sign, 3 officers tried to enter his room unannounced first using a key card and then a master key. Due to the chain lock, they could only peek through but they saw that Bourgeois alone and unarmed  He declined to let them in and turned away. Claiming exigent circumstances, police busted through the hotel door.

Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2022 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)

Attorneys Jason Luczak and Jorge Fragoso of Gimbel, Reilly, Geurin & Brown generously took this case pro bono. And now Jorge offers this guest post on their defense win:

Prison inmate (and hero to institutionalized persons) Victor Ortiz filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to limit the percentage of his income diverted for the payment of restitution. He won. The court of appeals ordered the Department of Corrections to limit its withholdings to 25% of Ortiz’s wages, half of what the Department sought.

State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11; case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Stroik of the sexual assault of a then-five-year old girl, “Amy,” the daughter of his girlfriend. Postconviction, Stroik brought a slew of claims for a new trial; the circuit court rejected them all. The court of appeals now holds that trial counsel performed deficiently in not obtaining a report from child protective services detailing an accusation Amy had made about her cousin a few months before she accused Stroik–an accusation about an assault quite similar in its details to the one she would later say Stroik committed. The court also finds a reasonable probability that this evidence would have resulted in an acquittal, and thus grants Stroik a new trial.

State v. Jere J. Meddaugh, 2022 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Wearing black clothing and riding a bicycle across publicly accessible school grounds in the middle of the night while a Safer at Home order is in effect does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. So says the court of appeals in a decision that is recommended for publication.

State v. A.G., 2021AP1476, 2/15/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Wonders never cease. Parents virtually never win TPR appeals no matter how strong their arguments are. Yet here A.G. wins an evidentiary hearing on not one but two claims that his “no contest” plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Julie C. Valadez v. Hon. Michael J. Aprahamian, 2021AP994, 2021AP1186, and 2021AP1436; 2/2/22, District 2 (1-judge opinions, ineligible for publication); case activity for 2021AP994, 2021AP1186, and 2021 AP1436 (including briefs)

In a child custody battle, the circuit court found Valadez, pro se, in contempt of court for: (1) sending it ex parte emails after being told not to, (2) repeatedly objecting and asking questions during a hearing, (3) failing to sign a release giving the GAL access to her confidential DHHS records; and (4) failing to stipulate to the release of additional, confidential DHHS records. The court of appeals, rejecting the judge’s claim that he wields inherent contempt powers beyond Chapter 785, reversed 3 of his 4 contempt findings.

Hemphill v. New York,  USSC No. 20-637, 142 S.Ct. 681, 1/20/22 reversing and remanding People v. Hemphill, 150 N.E.3d 356; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

New York charged Hemphill with a homicide; a stray 9mm bullet fired after a fight in the street had killed a child. Hemphill’s defense was that another man, Morris, had fired the shot. Police had searched Morris’s room and found both 9mm and .357-magnum ammunition, and the state had, in fact, originally charged Morris with the murder. Hemphill was able to introduce evidence of Morris’s possession of the 9mm ammo by cross-examination of a state’s witness. In response the state sought to introduce portions of a transcript of Morris’s ultimate plea–in which he admitted to possessing a .357 revolver, rather than the 9mm pistol that had killed the child. Morris was out of the country and thus not available for cross-examination, but the New York courts ruled the transcripts were admissible under state law allowing such evidence where it is “reasonably necessary” to “correct” a “misleading impression.” The Supreme Court reverses, declaring in an 8-1 decision that “Hemphill did not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making the plea allocution arguably relevant to his theory of defense.” (Slip op. at 2).

State v. T.A., 2020AP1350, 12/28/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Tanner (16) had sex with a girl (16) after she told him to “stop.” The circuit court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed but stayed a requirement that he register as a sex offender. Subsequently, the court lifted the stay and ordered Tanner to register as a sex offender for 15 years.  The court of appeals here reverses the “lift of stay” and orders a new hearing because the circuit court relied on an inaccurate interpretation of Tanner’s J-SOAP-II score at the original hearing.

State v. Nestor Luis Vega, 2021AP126-CR, District 4, 12/23/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vega testified at his trial on drug delivery charges and denied he had sold drugs to the informant and that the informant was not telling the truth. (¶12). On cross examination, the prosecutor, over defense counsel’s objections, asked Vega why he failed to give police his exculpatory version of events when he was arrested. (¶¶13-15). These questions violated Vega’s due process rights under State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 421 N.W.2d 96 (19880, and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), and the trial court’s error in allowing the questions was not harmless.