On Point: Important Posts

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2019 WI 106, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

In the most absurd decision this term (still time for worse), SCOW has denied a defendant sentenced to life without parole both a direct appeal and a new trial because the court system destroyed all of his trial transcripts. The defendant “sat on his rights,” said the majority opinion, written by Justice Ziegler. When his lawyer failed to file a timely notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief, he should have immediately, without counsel, figured out how to defend his appeal rights and effectively defended them. He didn’t. No relief.

State v. Kevin L. Nash, 2018AP731-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 12/10/19, case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

When accepting a guilty plea under Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a circuit court may find there is a factual basis for the plea only if there is “strong proof of guilt.” May a court find “strong proof of guilt” based only on the information contained in the criminal complaint, or must the court hear additional evidence before it can make that finding?

State v. Ryan M. Muth, 2019AP875-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 12/11/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (based on petition and  cross-petition for review):

1. Wisconsin’s marital property statutes provide that income accrued during marriage belongs to both spouses. Wisconsin’s restitution statute permits crime victims to recover “income lost” from the “filing of charges or cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the crime.” Where a crime causes a person’s death, can the deceased person’s adult children recover their spouse’s lost income  as restitution?

2. Where crime victims accept a civil settlement for lost wages and expenses, and the victims also seek restitution for lost wages and expenses, and where the defendant asserts “accord and sanctification,” does the defendant have to produce “extrinsic evidence” showing that the wages and expenses the victim received in the civil settlement are the same wages and expenses the victim seeks as criminal restitution?

State v. Alfonso Lorenzo Brooks, 2018AP1774, review of a per curiam decision granted 12/10/2019; reversed 6/25/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

Whether the community caretaker exception permits law enforcement to inventory and tow a vehicle after discovering that the driver does  not have a valid license, when the vehicle is lawfully parked and not obstructing traffic?

State v. Stephan I. Roberson, 2019 WI 102, 12/3/19, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2017AP1894, case activity (including briefs)

The result here is simple, and expected, given the current makeup of the court: a five-two majority to overturn State v. Dubose, 2005 WI 126, 285 Wis. 2d 143, 699 N.W.2d 582. Dubose held that “show up” identifications–those where the police present a witness with only one suspect–were inherently suggestive, and identifications so obtained would be inadmissible unless circumstances rendered the procedure “necessary.” So, now, Wisconsin courts will review claims that a show-up identification should be excluded under the test of State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234, 264, 533 N.W.2d 167 (1995): a defendant must carry the initial burden to show the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and if he or she does, the state must then prove that the identification is nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances.

State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez & State v. Amy J. Rodriguez, 2019 WI 101, 11/27/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This appeal asked whether the State may charge multiple acts of misdemeanor retail theft under §943.50  as one felony under §971.36(3)(a).  The justices split 3-2-2. Five of them answered “yes,” but did not fully agree on a rationale for that mandate.  The justices also disagreed over the role titles play in statutory construction and over whether both appellants in a consolidated appeal must file a petition for review.

On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a  petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)

State v.

State v. Matthew Hinkle, 2019 WI 96, 11/12/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017AP1416, case activity (including briefs)

We’ve posted on this case twice before, first on the published court of appeals decision and then on the supreme court’s grant of the petition for review. The question is easily posed: the statute says that a juvenile is subject to automatic adult court jurisdiction if “the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under [chs. 48 and 948] has waived its jurisdiction over the juvenile for a previous violation” and the previous case is either pending or ended in conviction. Does “the court” in that phrase mean any juvenile court in the state (so that waiver in any county would forever precluded juvenile jurisdiction in every county), or does it mean the specific juvenile court in the county where criminal charges are contemplated (so that each county would have a chance to make the waiver decision in its own courts)?

State v. Roy S. Anderson, 2019 WI 97, 11/15/19, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Act 79 permits law enforcement to search a person on probation, parole or extended supervision based on reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) that the person, is is about to, or has committed a violation of a condition of his release. In its first decision on this law, SCOW holds 7-0 that the officer here had (a) knowledge of Anderson’s supervision status before conducting the search at issue, and (b) the reasonable suspicion needed to conduct the search.

State v. David Gutierrez, 2017AP2364-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/13/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (based on the State’s Petition for Review):

1. Did the court of appeals violate the standard of appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings by holding the trial court erred in deciding to exclude evidence offered by the defendant that DNA from other men was found on the clothing of the complainant in a child sexual assault prosecution?

2. Did the court of appeals improperly apply Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b), Wisconsin’s rape shield law, when it held the defendant was not offering the DNA evidence as evidence concerning the victim’s prior sexual conduct?