On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
For Ferguson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the police had undisputed probable cause to arrest Ferguson for disorderly conduct outside her apartment, but entered her apartment without a warrant to arrest her, they acted with “lawful authority” for purposes of obstructing, § 946.41, when transporting her away from the apartment,

State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120
For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski

Issue/Holding:

¶18      Law and Discussion: It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis. 2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct.

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grds., 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.

Issue/Holding:

¶43      Sveum was convicted of aggravated stalking based on his 1996 stalking conviction. Proof of this particular aggravated stalking crime requires proof of a previous conviction for a violent crime or a stalking crime involving the same victim pursuant to Wis.

State v. Danny G. Harrell, 2008 WI App 37
For Harrell: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Expert opinion that Harrell is sexually violent was derived from his compelled, incriminatory statement and therefore also inadmissible, ¶¶14-35.

The court essentially tracks the discussion in Mark, which therefore won’t be repeated, and applies it to the particular facts. The court also reserves authority to remand for a “ Kastigar” hearing,

State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, (AG’s) PFR filed 8/16/07Pro se

Issue/Holding: Review of a judge’s actions in a John Doe proceeding aren’t subject to direct appeal, but may be reviewed by writ of mandamus:

¶9 The parties agree that we review Judge Murray’s actions in connection with Hipp’s John Doe petition via mandamus. See State of Wisconsin ex rel.

State v. Scott R. Nelson, 2007 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/22/07
For Nelson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 3:

Because Nelson is making facial challenges to the constitutionality of chapter 980, the State’s assertion that Nelson has waived his constitutional arguments lacks merit. See State v. Bush, 2005 WI 103, ¶19,

State v. David M. Larsen, 2007 WI App 147, PFR filed 5/31/07
For Larsen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18 The parties express some confusion over whether an officer’s subjective motivations are relevant in determining whether his or her actions violate the Fourth Amendment in emergency doctrine matters. Recent cases from our supreme court and the United States Supreme Court clarify that whether a warrantless home entry is justified based on the need to render assistance or prevent harm is judged by an objective test. 

State v. Pdero L. Nieves, 2007 WI App 189, PFR filed 7/6/07
For Nieves: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding:

¶13 We conclude that probable cause to arrest for obstruction existed. An accumulation of factors contributed to Olsen’s suspicion that “Anthony Otero” was a false name which, in turn, led to the search. Olsen had been maintaining surveillance on a known drug house and a vehicle bearing plates registered to a known drug dealer’s vehicle.

State ex rel. Steven M. Rupinski v. Smith, 2007 WI App 4
For Rupinski: Daniel R. Drigot

Issue/Holding: ¶12 n. 3:

The State challenges the venue of Milwaukee County as improper because Rupinski is confined at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution located in Winnebago County. The State argues that, as a result, the writ was improperly filed under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4).  The proper venue for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the county “[w]here the plaintiff was convicted or sentenced if the action seeks relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence under which the plaintiff’s liberty is restrained” or “[w]here the liberty of the plaintiff is restrained if the action seeks relief concerning any other matter relating to a restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff.” Wis.

State v. Mark J. Roou, 2007 WI App 193
For Roou: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the defendant was entitled to plea-withdrawal on both plea-based counts or only the one count as to which the plea was defective (given that the State promised not to re-prosecute the latter count).

Holding1:

¶16 Roou contends that under Wisconsin law the trial court should have permitted him to withdraw from the entire plea agreement.