On Point

State v. Dustin R. Willette, 2017AP888, District 3, 2/6/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police dispatcher informed officer Hughes that a caller saw a man drive into gas station, exit his car, and walk away. Then another officer reported seeing a similarly-dressed man walking down the a road about a mile away. That man was Willette. Officer Hughes picked him up, drove him back to the car at the gas station, performed FSTs, arrested him for OWI, and asked him to submit to a blood test. Willette did not say  “yes” or “no.” He said “I want to speak to a lawyer.” Here’s why the circuit court found probable cause to arrest and improper refusal to submit to a blood test.

On January 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Antonio A. Johnson, 2018 WI App 2 (defendant entitled to a day of credit for portion of a day spent in custody)

State v. Taran Q. Raczka, 2018 WI App 3 (whether defendant was negligent in not taking seizure medication is a jury question)

State v.

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself.

Click here for SCOWstats update of its 2016 post Women in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which celebrated the steady rise in the number of women arguing cases there.  The good news is that the percentage of arguments by women lawyers in the private sector soared during 2016-2017. The bad news is that the percentage of arguments by women in the public sector plunged. Women gave 75% of public defender arguments in 2015-2016 but only 53% in 2016-2017. 

State v. Justin A. Braunschweig, 2017AP1261-CR, 2/1/8, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 6/11/18, affirmed, 2018 WI 113;  case activity (including briefs)

Let’s hope expunction has not worn out its welcome at SCOW because this decision could use review and possibly reversal. The State charged Braunschweig (no “er”) with OWI and PAC 2nd and submitted a certified DOT record to prove that he was convicted of an OWI 1st in 2011–a conviction that had been expunged. On appeal he argues that an expunged conviction cannot serve as a predicate for an OWI 2nd. It should be considered a status element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals disagrees, and the upshot is that someone charged with OWI cannot claim the primary benefit conferred by §973.015–i.e. a fresh start. Is that what the Wisconsin legislature intended?

State v. August D. Genz, 2016AP2475-CR, District 3, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Genz of (1) possession with intent to deliver amphetamine and (2) conspiracy to deliver THC. The court imposed concurrent, stayed sentences with 1 year of probation. Genz appealed the 2nd conviction, but he completed his term of probation while the appeal was pending. The State moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court of appeals said, essentially, no way. The appeal was not moot because a felony conviction has collateral consequences. Furthermore, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy to deliver THC.  Conviction reversed!

State v. Morris Rash, 2016AP2494-CR, District 1, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Morris Rash was convicted of substantial battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial. When it came time for postconviction proceedings and/or an appeal, it turned out that some photographs used as exhibits at the trial were not in the court record.

Who would’ve thunk? This is the subject of a hot new paper on the Social Science Research Network.  You can read it here.

This new paper examines data from over 1 million criminal cases in an attempt to answer that question.

Who wants to preserve a really provocative issue at their next trial? The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection, by Brittany Dietch, a Harvard Law fellow, argues that because the Sixth Amendment grants this right personally to the defendant and the Supreme Court has construed this right as intending to protect the defendant from governmental overreach, the prosecution should not be entitled to select the very jury that is supposed to serve as a check against its power.