On Point: Important Posts

On April 24, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following decisions:

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16 (involuntary medication of committed prisoners)

Brown County Human Services v. B.P. & T.F., 2019 WI App 18 (requirements for pleading “abandonment” under § 48.415; summary judgment reversed)

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2019 WI 45, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court holds (again) that, as part of any routine traffic stop, police may ask a driver whether he or she is carrying a weapon.

State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)

This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:

¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.

ASPD Andy Hinkel will argue Mitchell v. Wisconsin to the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday.  The issue is whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the case. It points out that 29 states have laws similar to Wisconsin’s, so the court’s decision in this case will indeed have nationwide impact.

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2019 WI 40, 4/19/19; case activity (including briefs)

ASPD Pam Moorshead briefed this appeal and argued it to SCOW less than two weeks ago. The lead issue was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner. Justice Abrahamson withdrew from participation leaving only 6 justices to decide the case.

State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez & Amy J. Rodriguez, 2017AP913-CR & 2017AP914-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Does either Wis. Stat. § 971.36 or inherent prosecutorial charging discretion allow a prosecutor to charge a single felony count of retail theft for multiple separate acts of theft, each involving less than $500 in merchandise, committed over a span of time?

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2017AP1416-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19;  affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Once a juvenile has been waived into adult court by one circuit court, must the juvenile always be subject to adult court jurisdiction in any other cases?

State v. Roy S. Anderson, 2017AP1104-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

What constitutes sufficient knowledge of an offender’s community supervision status where an officer wants to search him pursuant to 2013 Wisconsin Act 79?

Whether the officers in this case had reasonable suspicion to search Anderson pursuant to Act 79.

State v. Alexander M. Schultz, 2017AP1977-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (derived from petition for review):

When determining whether two offenses charged in successive prosecutions are the same in fact for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, how does the court determine the scope of jeopardy when the charged timeframe is ambiguous?

When there is ambiguity in the timeframe of the charging document who bears the burden resulting from the ambiguity–the defendant or the State?

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

Where no transcripts of a jury trial occurring over 20 years ago are available in a direct appeal and appellate counsel is new to the case, does application of  State v. Perry’s requirement that appellant assert a “facially valid claim of error” that might be supported by a portion of a missing transcript deny the constitutional right to meaningful appellate review?

Whether a statement on transcript filed in an appeal binds an appellant in all future appeals in the same case?