On Point: Important Posts

State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 2/25/20, affirming in part and reversing in part a summary order, 2018AP53; case activity (including briefs)

Brantner was arrested (for reasons unrelated to this case) in Kenosha County by Fond du Lac County detectives. They took him to jail in Fond du Lac, where a booking search revealed several different types of pills concealed in his boot. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Fond du Lac on five counts of drug possession and five associated bail-jumping counts. The supreme court now rejects his argument that he didn’t “possess” any of the drugs in Fond du Lac County–that the arrest in Kenosha terminated his possession because he lacked control over the pills. But it agrees with him that his conviction on two of the counts (with their associated bail-jumping counts) is a double-jeopardy violation; the bare fact that he had pills with two different oxycodone dosages (5 and 20 milligram) will not support two different charges of possessing that drug.

State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective.

State v. Lois M. Bertrand, 2019AP1240-CR, 2/26/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The 4th Amendment prohibits a warantless entry into the curtilage of a home unless it is supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶19, 372 Wis. 2d 202, 887 N.W.2d 554. In this case, the officer lacked a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances when he seized Bertrand in the garage attached to her house. Thus, the circuit court should have granted the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of her seizure.

State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2020 WI 15, 2/14/20, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

In this decision the supreme court explains how to calculate the minimum fine for an OWI when the fine is subject to multiple enhancer provisions. The supreme court’s calculation is better for defendants than the one arrived at by the court of appeals, though not the more favorable one advanced by Neill.

State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2020 WI 12, 2/13/20 modifying and affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2017AP2265; case activity (including briefs)

This case is the companion to State v. Coffee, which, though argued on the same day, came out a few weeks earlier and failed, in particularly confusing fashion, to announce any binding rule. This case does make a rule:

We conclude that where previously unknown information is raised by the circuit court at the sentencing hearing, a defendant does not forfeit a direct challenge to the use of the information by failing to object at he sentencing hearing. Under the facts of this case, Counihan appropriately raised the alleged error in a postconviction motion.

(¶4).

Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, 2/4/2020, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; 2017AP2217; (case activity)

The caption is the most confusing part of this opinion:

ZIEGLER, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I., II., III., IV.A., IV.B., and IV.C.1, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, KELLY, and HAGEDORN, JJ., joined, the majority opinion of the Court with respect to Part V., in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., KELLY and HAGEDORN, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV.C.2., and IV.D., in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., and HAGEDORN, JJ., joined. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KELLY, J., joined. DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined.

But it’s not as bad as it looks! And this decision makes (some) law: specifically, that an appeal of an original commitment is not moot where the commitment has the continuing effect of forbidding its subject to possess firearms.

State v. Angel Mercado, 2020 WI App 14, petition for review granted, 5/19/20; reversed 1/20/20; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals orders a new trial for Mercado on the grounds the circuit court erred in admitting the video statements of three children who accused him of sexually assaulting them. The circuit court didn’t comply with the requirements of § 908.08(2) and (3) in admitting the videos, and the videos also weren’t admissible under the residual hearsay exception or as prior inconsistent statements.

State v. Thomas Michael Barrett, 2020 WI App 13; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Barrett’s facial and void-for-vagueness challenges to Wisconsin’s prohibition on firearm silencers, § 941.298.

City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11, 2/11/19 (on bypass of the court of appeals); case activity (including briefs)

Municipal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over ordinance violations (e.g. an OWI 1st), and circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over misdemeanors and felonies (e.g. an OWI 2nd or subsequent). In this 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that a municipal court had subject matter jurisdiction over an OWI 2nd that was mischarged as an OWI 1st. 

Terez Cook v. Brian Foster, Warden, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 18-2214, 1/29/2020

Pursuing a federal writ of habeas corpus is always a long shot; in non-capital cases fewer than 1% of petitions are successful. Terez Cook gets it done here, convincing the Seventh Circuit his lawyer was ineffective at his trial for a home-invasion robbery (and that the Wisconsin court of appeals’ decision to the contrary was not just wrong, but unreasonable). The federal court is puzzled by a few aspects of our state court’s denial of Cook’s claims. But the thing that seems to push that denial over the line into unreasonableness–AEDPA‘s stringent requirement for habeas relief–is that it got a crucial fact wrong. The state court’s opinion relies on a confession by Cook–a confesssion for which there’s apparently no evidence. How did our court go astray? Well, the state described the (non-existent) confession in its brief, and then Cook’s direct-appeal counsel apparently didn’t check the facts, and neither did the court of appeals.