On Point: 2. Common law

State v. Robert M. Christianson, 2024AP1884-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Christianson pleaded no contest to OWI 8th after the circuit court rejected his collateral challenges to 3 prior OWI convictions. On appeal, he renews his arguments that the three convictions are invalid because he did not have legal counsel, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (“KIV”) waive his right to counsel, and the court handling the case failed to find that he was competent to proceed without counsel in each case. COA concludes that Christianson made a prima facie showing that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel in all three cases, but the state met its burden to show that he nonetheless validly waived his right to counsel in 2 of the 3 cases, and the circuit court properly found that he was competent to proceed without counsel.

State v. Chris K. Feller, 2019AP318, 11/27/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appeal poses an interesting question of law: whether the justification defense available in certain civil forfeiture actions applies where a driver exceeds the speed limit in order to get away from another driver who is dangerously tailgating him on the freeway.  See State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 318 N.W.2d 370. The court of appeals contorts the undisputed facts in order to duck the issue.

State v. Scott H. Wenger, 2017AP2305, 6/14/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wenger got arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting at Art in the Park in Stevens point. The circuit court dismissed the DC but found him guilty, after a bench trial, of resisting. He claims insufficient evidence as to all three elements of resisting an officer:

State v. Vernon D. Hershberger, 2014 WI App 86; case activity

As a general rule, a person may not collaterally attack a prior judicial order or judgment in a proceeding brought to enforce that order or judgment, e.g., State v. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, ¶¶51-55, 294 Wis. 2d 100, 718 N.W.2d 649. The court of appeals holds this rule also applies to proceedings brought to enforce an administrative order.

State v. Tammy S. Camden, 2012AP1451, District 4, 5/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court concluded a driver’s speeding was legally justified after accepting her testimony that she exceeded the speed limit in order to get away from a vehicle following in close proximity and copying her every move. The court of appeals reverses, concluding the defense of legal justification or “necessity”

State v. Jermaine Kennard Young, 2010AP2959-CR, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Young: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity

Reasonable suspicion existed to justify investigative stop of Young, based on a tip from confidential informant that someone matching Young’s description would be at a specified time and place to sell drugs.

¶13      When determining the reliability of a CI’s tip,

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,

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶42      Where a valid order or judgment is a necessary condition for one of the elements of a crime, a collateral attack upon the order or judgment can negate an element of the crime if the order or judgment is void. See State v.

State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remandingsummary order of court of appeals
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler

Issue/Holding:

¶28      Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: To attack a custody order as void, in defense against interference with child custody, § 948.31, “the family court would have had to lack subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or Campbell would have had to receive inadequate notice of the divorce proceedings,” ¶46.

Campbell argued that the custody order was procured by fraud,