On Point

State v. Justin T. Kane, 2018AP1885-CR, District 4, 2/6/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kane’s consent to a blood draw after his arrest for OWI was voluntary under all the circumstances.

City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11, 2/11/19 (on bypass of the court of appeals); case activity (including briefs)

Municipal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over ordinance violations (e.g. an OWI 1st), and circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over misdemeanors and felonies (e.g. an OWI 2nd or subsequent). In this 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that a municipal court had subject matter jurisdiction over an OWI 2nd that was mischarged as an OWI 1st. 

Terez Cook v. Brian Foster, Warden, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 18-2214, 1/29/2020

Pursuing a federal writ of habeas corpus is always a long shot; in non-capital cases fewer than 1% of petitions are successful. Terez Cook gets it done here, convincing the Seventh Circuit his lawyer was ineffective at his trial for a home-invasion robbery (and that the Wisconsin court of appeals’ decision to the contrary was not just wrong, but unreasonable). The federal court is puzzled by a few aspects of our state court’s denial of Cook’s claims. But the thing that seems to push that denial over the line into unreasonableness–AEDPA‘s stringent requirement for habeas relief–is that it got a crucial fact wrong. The state court’s opinion relies on a confession by Cook–a confesssion for which there’s apparently no evidence. How did our court go astray? Well, the state described the (non-existent) confession in its brief, and then Cook’s direct-appeal counsel apparently didn’t check the facts, and neither did the court of appeals.

State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2018AP2357-CRLV, review of a decision of the court of appeals denying the state’s petition for leave to appeal; case activity

Before turning to the issues presented, we’ll start with an observation about how this case might seem to affect appellate litigation in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal.

Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Kenneth W. Gorski, 2020 WI 5, imposing a public reprimand on a court commissioner; case activity

Gorski, a part-time court commissioner, earns a public reprimand for failing to recuse himself from a case being handled by a lawyer who is a close friend and for his treatment of the pro se litigant in that case.

On January 29, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication in the following criminal law related cases:

State v. James L. Jackson, Jr., 2020 WI App 4 (requiring internet identifiers of sex offender registrants doesn’t violate First Amendment)

Dane County DHS v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5 (rejecting an “as applied” challenge to amended § 48.415(2)(a))

State v. D.I.G., 2019AP855, 2/5/2020, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The juvenile here was found delinquent for sexual contact with his younger sister. He moved the court for a stay of registration under State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1. The court declined to stay registration, disagreeing with the expert assessment the juvenile presented. As you might expect, the court of appeals affirms this discretionary decision.

Racine County Human Services Department v. S.J.A., 2019AP2160 & 2161, 2/5/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

It would be interesting to see the briefs in this case, but since it’s a TPR, they’re not online. What we can see is the opinion, which shows commendable (and unfortunately uncommon) attention to detail. It’s easy to imagine a glib, slapdash affirmance of this summary judgment against the parent in a TPR; we don’t get one though. Instead we see a searching review of what was proved and what was not, and a (really all too uncommon) reversal.

State v. Camron Rufus Spencer, 2019AP912-CR & 2019AP913-CR, District 1, 1/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including state’s brief)

Spencer’s custody leading up to his sentencing was not factually connected to the crimes for which he was sentenced, so he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for that time.

State v. Anthony J. Madland, 2019AP146-CR, District 3, 1/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Madland asserted that he requested an alternative chemical test under § 343.305 and that the officer who read the “informing the accused” form to him misled him as to his right to request an alternative test. The court of appeals rejects the claims in light of the circuit court’s fact findings.