On Point blog, page 93 of 133
Arrest – Probable Cause – Specific Examples: Obstructing
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: By fleeing from a police command to stop, the defendant provided probable cause to arrest for obstructing, and the officer therefore was acting with “lawful authority” under § 946.41(1), ¶¶77-78.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private / Government Search: Administration of Laxative to Arrestee at Hospital
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether the administration to an arrestee of a laxative at a hospital was under 4th amendment constraints because of the involvement of the police (including keeping the defendant handcuffed in the hospital room; police administration of the laxative; their palpable goal to recover a controlled substance that the defendant had swallowed).
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private / Government Search, Generally
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶17 … Private searches are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections because the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action. State v. Rogers, 148 Wis. 2d 243, 246, 435 N.W.2d 275 (Ct. App. 1988) ….¶18 The court of appeals in Rogers stated three requirements that must be met for a search to be a private search:
(1) the police may not initiate,
(State) Habeas Procedure — Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel — Laches Bar
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶28 Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).
§ 948.31, Interference with Child Custody: Elements, Generally
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶37 For Campbell to be convicted of interfering with custody of Cody, the State had to prove five elements: (1) Cody was younger than 18 years; (2) Denise had legal custody of Cody under a court order in an action for divorce; (3) Campbell took Cody from Denise and withheld him from Denise without her consent for more than 12 hours past the time allowed by the custody order;
Common Law Defenses – Collateral Attack on Custody Order, § 948.31
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: To attack a custody order as void, in defense against interference with child custody, § 948.31, “the family court would have had to lack subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or Campbell would have had to receive inadequate notice of the divorce proceedings,” ¶46.
Campbell argued that the custody order was procured by fraud,
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-sentence – Procedure, Generally
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶39 After sentencing, in cases that involve an alleged deficiency in the plea colloquy, an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea proceeds as follows. The defendant must file a postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. § 809.30 or other appropriate statute. The motion must (1) make a prima facie showing of a violation of Wis.
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Substantial Prejudice” to State: Absence of Assertion
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2006 WI App 28, overruled on other grounds, 2007 WI 96
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶31 Our conclusion that Jenkins had a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal does not end our inquiry. We must consider whether the State would be substantially prejudiced by the plea withdrawal. See id.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Pleading Requirements, Dual Bangert and Nelson/Bentley Motion
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶74 The Bangert and Nelson/Bentley motions, however, are applicable to different factual circumstances. [47] A defendant invokes Bangert when the plea colloquy is defective; a defendant invokes Nelson/Bentley when the defendant alleges that some factor extrinsic to the plea colloquy,
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence — Procedure: Prima Facie Showing, Relative to Rights Waived – Illiterate Defendant, Perfunctory Colloquy
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: On the particular facts (illiterate defendant, no written questionnaire, perfunctory colloquy) the defendant was entitled to a Bangert hearing on whether the understood the nature of the rights waived by his guilty plea.
With respect to waiver of right to jury trial,