On Point

State v. Dallas R. Christel, 2020AP1127-1128-Cr, 12/8/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Christel argued that §940.235, which criminalizes strangulation and suffocation, (1) violates substantive due process on its face and as applied to him, (2) is overbroad, and (3) is void for vagueness. He also argued for a new-factor-based sentence modification on his bail-jumping convictions. The court of appeals torpedoed every claim.

State v. Nietzold, 2021AP21-CR, 12/9/21, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)

The State admits that it made a sentencing recommendation that breached the parties’ plea agreement. It claimed that the breach was not “material and substantial” because after the defendant objected it withdrew the recommendation. The court of appeals found the State’s breach to be “material and substantial” and the DA’s after-the-fact retraction of its comments and recommendation did not cure the breach.

State v. B.M., 2021AP501-FT, 12/14/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A court found “Brandon” delinquent and placed him on juvenile supervision. It said that if the State wanted electronic monitoring it could “schedule further proceedings and we’ll take that up.” But then the written order directed that he “shall participate in the electronic monitoring program as deemed appropriate by the assigned juvenile worker for any violation of supervision.”

State v. Anne E. Streckenbach, 2020AP345-CR, 12/7/21, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

When a cop stopped Streckenbach for a traffic violation he observed signs of intoxication. He asked her the 24 questions that appear the DOT’s Alcohol/Drug Influence Report–questions that are usually asked after the driver has been arrested and Mirandized. Streckenbach couldn’t answer all of the questions, so the cop conducted field sobriety tests, which she failed. Did the cop’s questioning violate her state and federal constitutional rights to be free from self-incrimination?

State v. A.P., 2021AP1146-47, 12/7/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.P. appealed orders terminating his parental rights to his two children. The court of appeals rejected his claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to make his mother the guardian of the children and his new trial in the interests of justice claim.

Marathon County v. J.A.E., 2021AP898, 12/7/21, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

For an initial commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c., the circuit court must find clear and convincing evidence that a mentally ill person’s judgment is impaired such that there  is “a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself or others.” The court of appeals held that James’s hallucinations during his examinations, his refusal of medication, and his use of methamphetamine satisfied this standard.

This week the Wisconsin Supreme Court hears oral argument in 5 cases concerning public defense. They raise some hot-button issues. Here are the cases, issues, and the times for the arguments, which you can watch on Wisconsineye.org:

State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 2021 WI 81, 11/18/21, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Section 973.15(5) provides that if an offender convicted in Wisconsin is “made available” to another jurisdiction, he or she gets credit toward his or her Wisconsin sentence “under the terms of § 973.155” for the duration of his or her custody in the other jurisdiction. The supreme court holds this language unambiguously requires that to get credit, the offender’s custody in the other jurisdiction must meet § 973.155’s requirement that the custody be “in connection with” the conduct for which the Wisconsin sentence was imposed.

State v. Nakyta V.T. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

To convict someone of possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove both that he was in possession of the substance and that he knew or believed he was in possession of it. State v. Christel, 61 Wis. 2d 143, 159, 211 N.W.2d 801 (1973). See also Wis JI-Criminal 6000. In a published opinion, the court of appeals holds Chentis knew he possessed a trace amount of heroin–undetectable until the State Crime Lab applied a special chemical to paraphernalia–based on fresh track marks on his arm.

Portage County v. C.K.S., 2021AP1291-FT, 11/24/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court recommitted C.K.S. but apparently neglected to specify the applicable standard(s) of dangerousness. C.K.S. appealed arguing that the court violated D.J.W. and that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient. The court of appeals declined to address the D.J.W. error. Instead, it reviewed the county’s evidence of dangerousness and held it insufficient under the only standards that could apply: the 1st, 3rd, and 4th standards.