On Point: B. Opinions

State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2013 WI 59 (per curiam), affirming, as modified, an unpublished court of appeals opinion; reconsideration granted, 2014 WI 16 (per curiam); Justices Prosser and Gableman not participating; case activity

(Note: On July 22, 2013, both Johnson and the state filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s original decision;

Village of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion; Justice Bradley, for a unanimous court; case activity

The 10-day deadline for filing a request for a refusal hearing, §§ 343.305(9)(a)4. and (10)(a), is mandatory, and may not be extended based on excusable neglect.

Brefka was issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privileges on December 12 after he refused a chemical test.

State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home and conduct a search. The court concludes the rule governing third-party consent articulated in United States v.

State v. Steffes, 2013 WI 53, on review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

Given the absence of precedent, Wisconsin Supreme Court may be out on a limb (or, rather, a pole) on this one.  Apparently, while in prison, Matthew Steffes and his cohorts figured out a way to submit a fictitious business name and stolen personal information to AT&T in order to obtain a phone number. 

State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision;  case activity

Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities. 

State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, on review of published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack

Beamon was tried for fleeing an officer under § 346.04(3), which requires proof that the person knowingly fled or attempted to elude an officer in one of three ways:  1) by willful or wanton disregard of a visible or audible signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the police officer or other vehicles or pedestrians; 

State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2013 WI 38, affirming published court of appeals decision, 2012 WI App 46, 340 Wis. 2d 639, 813 N.W.2d 702; case activity

¶9   The question of law presented to this court is whether a circuit court’s imposition of a sentence using inaccurate information that the defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum five-year period of confinement is structural error or subject to the application of harmless error analysis…. 

Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC 11-9953, 4/29/13

United States Supreme Court order and opinions, dismissing, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari to review State v. Boyer, 56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

As explained in our post on the grant of certiorari, the issue was whether and how the state’s failure to fund indigent defense should count against the state in analyzing the defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim under Barker v.

State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, on review of court of appeals certification; case activity

In a split decision, the supreme court holds that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the long-established procedure established by State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), even though the trial court misinformed him of the maximum penalty he faced:

¶8        We hold that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly,

State v. Taylor continues what the supreme court began in State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64:  Dismantling by implication the well-established Bangert procedures and creating new ways for trial courts to avoid evidentiary hearings on plea withdrawal motions.

Taylor’s motion clearly established enough to get an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. (¶75). So why didn’t he get one?