On Point: E. Specific motions/hearings

State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and  (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).

State v. Kevin Richard Raddemann, 2022AP668-CR, 12/21/22, District II (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

In this misdemeanor OWI case, Raddemann moved to suppress evidence obtained following a stop of his vehicle. After the suppression hearing, he moved for reconsideration, arguing that a City of Hartford cemetery ordinance, which was the basis for the stop, was unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court denied Raddemann’s motion to reconsider because it was untimely. ¶5.

State v. Skylard R. Grant, 2020AP404, 7/20/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Grant pleaded to reduced charges on the second day of his trial for homicide, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing THC with intent to deliver. He claims his trial lawyer was inadequate in various ways during the trial. The court rejects Grant’s specific claims, but it also rejects the state’s expansive reading of State v. Villegas, 2018 WI App 9, 380 Wis. 2d 246, 908 N.W.2d 198. The state had argued that counsel’s alleged failings were waived by the guilty plea because they did not occur during the actual process of procuring the plea. The court of appeals says Villegas‘s waiver rule is not quite this unforgiving; it clarifies (in accord with Supreme Court case law) that claims of ineffective assistance survive a guilty plea where, “but for counsel’s errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty.”

State v. Alijouwon T. Watkins, 2019AP1996-CR, 5/27/21, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Watkins with several crimes stemming from a domestic violence call: these included escape and battery to one of the police officers who arrested him. While Watkins was in jail, the state charged him with three more crimes related to his alleged attempts to secure perjured testimony about the earlier incident and, the state said, have the arresting officer/alleged victim killed.

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2020 WI App 73, petition to review granted, 2/26/21; case activity (including briefs)

This is the first of what will likely be a series of appellate court decisions that re-make criminal litigation in light of “Marsy’s Law,” the recently-passed crime victims’ rights amendment to Article I, § 9m, of the Wisconsin constitution.

State v. Bobby L. McNeil, 2019AP467-CR & 2019468-CR, District 1, 7/21/10 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McNeil was convicted of drug offenses, obstructing, and bail jumping after a trial in two consolidated cases. His challenges to the joinder of the cases and to various evidentiary issues are rejected, but he prevails on the challenge to his sentence because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing.

State v. Jarmel Dontra Chisem, 2017AP1114-CR, 3/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Chisem, facing charges of first degree reckless homicide and first degree recklessly endangering safety, moved to sever his case from that of his co-defendant, Davis. The court of appeals holds trying the two together was fine.

State v. Esmeralda Rivera-Hernandez, 2018AP311-312-CR, 2/20/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

DAs have almost limitless discretion in deciding whether to initiate a prosecution. But their discretion to terminate a prosecution is subject to independent review by the circuit court, which must consider the public’s interest in: (1) the proper enforcement of its laws, and (2) deferring to the prosecutor’s legitimate discretion.  See State v. Kenyon, 85 Wis. 2d 36, 45, 270 N.W.2d 170 (1978). In this case, the court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it considered (1) but not (2).

State v. Brian A. Barwick, 2017AP958-CR through 2017AP961-CR, District 1, 9/5/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Barwick was charged with eleven counts of various crimes in four separate cases that were consolidated for trial. He makes various unsuccessful challenges to his convictions.

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.