On Point

State v. Pedro R. Mendoza, III, 2018AP2325-Cr,10/6/20,  District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Mendoza of 1st degree recklessly endangering safety and 1st degree endangering safety when he shot into a car occupied by H.V. and M.M.C. Mendoza claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) seek exclusion of his history with the Latin Kings, (2) seek admission of evidence that H.V. and M.M.C. had previously intimidated witnesses and conspired to falsify testimony; and (3) introduce expert testimony regarding his PTSD to help show that he shot in self-defense. The circuit court ordered a Machner hearing, but denied relief. The court of appeals issued a rare reversal on all 3 ineffective assistance of counsel claims and remanded the case for a new trial.

State v. Chanler Lee Guyton, 2019AP1409-CR, District 3, 10/6/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Guyton told a social worker for a county social services agency that she and four of her colleagues had violated his rights in a CHIPS proceeding regarding his son. He said he would deal with the matter “with my own hands” and things were “going to turn very tragic” because he would come to their office armed. (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his claim this was insufficient to prove the elements of witness intimidation under § 940.201(2)(a).

State v. Sarah J. Katula-Talle, 2019AP1622-CR, District 3, 10/6/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer had contact with Katula-Talle while responding to a domestic disturbance call. The department’s standard procedure in those situations is to run a driver’s license and warrant check on everyone the officers have contact with. The check on Katula-Talle showed she was revoked for an OWI-related offense. Two weeks later the officer saw her driving and stopped her on suspicion she was operating after revocation. (¶¶3-5). Was the two-week-old check enough to justify the stop, or was it only enough to give the officer a hunch?

Portage County v. E.R.R., 2020AP870-FT, District 4, 10/1/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

As the supreme court recently emphasized, at a proceeding to extend a ch. 51 commitment, proving dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(am) requires evidence establishing that the person is likely to be dangerous under one of the specific standards in § 51.20(1)(a)2. if treatment is withdrawn. Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. There was not enough evidence in this case to prove E.R.R. was dangerous under one of those standards.

On September 30, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, 2019AP1983, 9/24/20, District 4; case activity (including briefs); certification granted 11/18/20, reversed, 2021 WI 59

Wisconsin courts apply a robust guilty-plea waiver rule: in general, a plea will block a defendant from appealing any issue litigated before the plea. There is one important statutory exception: Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10) entitles a defendant to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or a motion to exclude his or her own statements, guilty plea or no. But other matters that may have arisen–pre-trial evidentiary decisions, fights over discovery, etc.–are typically not reviewable unless the defendant insists on a trial.

State v. Synika Antonio Kirk, 2019AP175, 9/22/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

You know, those semis that carry like 6 or 10 cars. Kirk owned a 1989 Jaguar that was riding on such a vehicle along with several other cars. A Kansas trooper pulled the truck over and asked to inspect the driver’s paperwork. The trooper would testify that the driver’s logbook had an entry he found strange: a two-day stay in Reno, Nevada after the truck was loaded–a stop the trooper called “not normal.” He also didn’t buy the driver’s explanation that he had spent those two days trying to find tires for his truck.

State v. Raymond R. Barton, 2019AP1990, 9/24/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Barton was convicted at trial of three counts involving battery of his adult stepson. He argues the trial court should have granted the mistrial he asked for when his daughter testified she was afraid that something had happened because “things had happened before.” He also asserts the court should have instructed the jury on self-defense. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.

State v. D.Q., 2020AP1109, 9/22/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.Q. fathered a child, K.C., with a woman here called N.E.C. D.Q. wasn’t involved with K.C. for three years after her birth; he had reason to suspect he was the father but did not seek to confirm this by testing. During that time, K.C. was taken from N.E.C.’s home for various intervals via CHIPS proceeding. N.E.C. also became involved with another man who played a substantial part in caring for K.C.

State v. Scott W. Heimbruch, 2020 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

When an officer arrests a driver either for OWI or for causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion of OWI and requests a chemical test, he must read  the driver the legislatively prescribed “Informing the Accused” form. See §343.305(3) and (4). The form describes the potential penalties the driver faces for refusing the chemical test. In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the form’s information for drivers accused of causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion OWI was inaccurate. See State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶¶5, 38, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774. Unfortunately, the legislature has never bothered to change the form.