On Point

State v. Christopher J. Vaaler, 2019AP2174, 8/6/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer pulled Vaaler over in the very early morning for not having his headlights on. Per the court of appeals, Vaaler’s unusual manner of speech, the odor of intoxicants, and the fact of an open beer next to him were enough for the officer to conduct the OWI investigation that ultimately led to Vaaler’s arrest and conviction:

Michael Gilbreath v. Dan Winkleski, Case No. 19-cv-728-jdp (W.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2020)

Witness credibility was the key issue at Gilbreath’s trial, and his counsel’s failure to present evidence that would have undermined [the complaining witness’s] credibility and bolstered Gilbreath’s defense deprived Gilbreath of a fair trial. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably concluded that the failure to present the credibility evidence was a matter of reasonable trial strategy and that the evidence was merely cumulative. Gilbreath is entitled to habeas relief.

Danny Wilber v. Michael Thurmer, Case No. 10-C-179 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 4, 2020).

It’s said that defendants having meritorious postconviction claims are more likely to win relief on a habeas petition in federal court than on direct appeal in Wisconsin’s appellate courts. This decision could be a poster child for that theory.  On Point last reported on Danny Wilber’s case in 2018 when the court of appeals rejected seven §974.06 claims and affirmed his conviction for 1st degree homicide. Judge Griesbach just granted Wilber’s habeas petition and ordered a new trial.

State v. Brian Anthony Taylor, 2019AP1770-CR,  District 1, 7/28/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

What a frustrating decision. Taylor filed a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea for repeated sexual assault of a child, but the circuit court denied it applying the more stringent post-sentencing plea withdrawal standard. “No problem,” says the court of appeals, “we’ll apply the correct standard for you and affirm.”

State v. L.C., 2020AP796, District 1, 7/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Whether to grant a default judgment in a TPR proceeding as a sanction for a parent’s egregious conduct is left to the circuit court’s discretion, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in defaulting L.C.

State v. Darrin Stingle, 2019AP491, District 3, 7/28/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Stingle is not the typical subject of an On Point post. He owns farmland in Outagamie County, and the DNR cited him for discharging fill material into wetlands on it. At a 1-day bench the trial judge twice made comments suggesting that he had prejudged the case. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. It also admonished (but did not sanction) the State’s appellate lawyer for requesting an extension two weeks after its deadline for filing a response brief.

State v. Leonard D. Kachinsky, 2020AP118-CR, 7/29/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2018, the circuit court imposed a harassment injunction against Kachinsky (then a municipal judge) based on his conduct toward M.B., the municipal court manager. This appeal concerns his conviction and sentence for violating that order by hanging a sexual harassment poster by M.B.’s desk and highlighting the term “sexual” each time it appeared.

SCOWstats recently posted a three-part analysis of the 2019-2020 term. The first post noted the plunge in SCOW’s output this year. It issued only 45 opinions. The record low is 43. Indeed, since 1971 the number of opinions is, à la a certain Bruce Springsteen refrain, going down, down, down down. Then there’s this shocker: Justice Hagedorn actually voted with Justices A.W. Bradley and Dallet more often than he did with R.G. Bradley! Will this trend continue now that Karofsky is in and Kelly is out?

Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2018AP1887, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 7/24/20; case activity

Issues presented:

1. Did the circuit court lose competency to conduct a recommitment hearing because the County did not file the evaluation of K.E.K. at least 21 days before the expiration of her commitment, as required by § 51.20(13)(g)2r.?
2. Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) facially unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment  because it violates the guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection of the law or abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens?
3. Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) unconstitutional as applied to K.E.K.?

  On Point is taking a short, well-deserved (or at least greatly needed) hiatus for some R & R during these dog days of summer. We know those dogs will be happy we have some more time to spend with them! See you in August.