On Point

State v. Savage, 2020 WI 93, 12/23/20, reversing a court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs).

Savage, who was homeless, claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to advise him that he had a defense under State v. Dinkins, 2012 WI 24, 339 Wis. 2d 78, 810 N.W.2d 787 before he pled guilty to violating the sex offender registry rule that he provide his address to the DOC. According to Savage and the court of appeals, Dinkins held that a homeless person is exempt from sex offender registration requirements.  In a unanimous opinion, SCOW reverses, holds that Dinkins did not establish that broad exemption, and thus counsel did not perform deficiently.

State v. Brian v. Rotolo, 2019AP2061-CR, petition for review granted 12/28/20; case activity

Issue presented (adapted from the petition for review):

In State v. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, ¶6, 346 Wis. 2d 523, 828 N.W.2d 552, SCOW held that the test for Fifth Amendment Miranda custody is whether “a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview and leave the scene.” Does this test for determining Miranda custody also apply when police legally detain a suspect under Terry?

State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2020AP616-CR, petition for bypass granted 12/28/20; case activity

1. Does Wis. Stat. §973.042 (the child pornography surcharge statute) permit the circuit court to impose a child pornography surcharge for an offense that is “read in” for sentencing purposes?
2. Is the child pornography surcharge a punishment that must be explained during a plea colloquy? If so, was Schmidt entitled to a hearing on his claim that the plea colloquy was deficient in this case?

On December 23, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related case:

State v. Jack B. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81 (mandatory minimum for OWI trumps SAP early release requirement)

Winnebago County v. D.D.A., 2020AP1351, District 2, 12/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects D.D.A.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the petition to extend his ch. 51 commitment and to the evidence presented at the extension hearing.

Calumet County v. J.M.K., 2020AP1183-FT, District 2, 12/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence proved J.M.K. (“Jane”) was not competent to refuse psychotropic medication.

State v. Benjamin J. Klapps, 2021 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court granted the state’s petition to revoke Klapps’s conditional release under § 971.17(3)(e), citing in particular the report of a prior examiner who didn’t testify at the revocation hearing and whose report wasn’t entered into evidence. (¶¶2-13). Klapps argued the trial judge had prejudged his case based on the previously filed report,

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2020 WI 92, 12/18/20, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

A five-justice majority of the supreme court holds that the state does not need to present expert opinion testimony that a person subject to commitment under Chapter 980 is dangerous to others because his mental disorder makes it more likely than not that he will engage in one or more future acts of sexual violence.

State v. Frederick Jennings, 2019AP1539-CR, 12/22/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Three officers noticed Jennings either in or near the passenger side of a Toyota having dark tinted windows. They detained him, found marijuana and contraband in the car, arrested him, and found heroin in his pocket. Jennings moved to suppress arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the detention. Two officers testified at the suppression hearing. They contradicted each other and the body cam video, none of which supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop. While the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals reversed.

In this Illinois case, the State charged the defendant with sexually abusing a teenager, R.L., who experienced PTSD as a result of the abuse. Citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State moved for permission to let R.L. testify with her service dog present because it feared she might experience a PTSD episode on the stand. Motion granted, and order affirmed. Apparently, other states have also concluded that the presence of a service dog does not create undue sympathy for a testifying victim.