On Point: 3. Claim/Issue Preclusion

State v. Bruce T. Henningfield, 2015AP1824-CR, 3/15/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bruce Henningfield was convicted by a jury of OWI and PAC counts, and was sentenced on the OWI as a tenth or subsequent offense. He raises three issues related to his prior convictions; the court rejects them all.

State v. Zachary W. Swan, 2015AP1718-CR, 5/5/16, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity, including briefs

Swan was convicted of OWI 2nd with a prohibited alcohol content. On appeal he argued that the circuit court should have suppressed the results of a preliminary breath test and other evidence due to the absence of probable cause. The court of appeals initially rejected Swan’s argument on the ground of issue preclusion, but on reconsideration agreed with Swan that issue preclusion “could not apply as a matter of law.” (¶2, ¶13). It now rejects Swan’s argument on the merits and affirms.

Question presented:

Whether, under Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), and Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause?

State v. Shannon J. Perronne, 2011AP1731-CR, District 2, 5/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perrone: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

When the principal State’s witness failed to appear at a suppression hearing, the trial court ordered suppression and dismissed the charge. The State then refiled the complaint and the trial court vacated the suppression order, eventually denying suppression on the ground that probable cause supported arrest.

State v. Michael A. Imbruglia, 2011AP1373-CR, District 2, 2/8/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Imbruglia: Rick Ramirez; case activity

In circuit court, Imbruglia successfully challenged use of a Colorado conviction as an OWI enhancer (on the ground that statute isn’t “substantially similar” to Wisconsin’s). However, after another OWI arrest the very next day, the State reasserted that same conviction to enhance the new charge.

State v. Jason L. Decorah, 2011AP662-CR, District 4, 12/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Decorah: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity

Collateral attack on a prior OWI used as a current enhancer, on the ground Decorah didn’t understand the range of penalties therefore didn’t validly waive counsel. Decorah prevailed below, and the court affirms on this State’s appeal:

¶3        Decorah’s collateral attack is based on his contention that,

City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06
For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning

Issue: Whether a prior judicial review of a driver’s license suspension, overturning the administrative suspension, had a preclusive effect on the issue of probable cause to arrest for drunk driving in the subsequent prosecution for that offense.

Holding:

¶11 Thus, a threshold prerequisite for application of the doctrine is that,

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57
For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder

Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9.

The court remands for determination of whether issue preclusion is appropriate in this instance,

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23.

The court invokes this principle as justification for rejection of Smith’s requested jury instruction on whether the issuing court exercised “competent jurisdiction.” Given the court’s holding that this matter is not an element,

State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion is upon the party asserting its applicability. Alexopoulos v. Dakouras,