On Point

State v. Michael L. Washington, 2018 WI 3, 1/9/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court determines that, despite the absence of any colloquy, a defendant who was not present for his trial waived his statutory right to be there.

State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Douglas got inaccurate advice about the prison time he faced if he went to trial instead of taking the State’s plea offer. The inaccurate advice makes his plea invalid.

State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.

State v. Terry Sanders, 2017AP636-CR, District 3, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sanders challenges his arrest for OWI, saying the officer lacked probable cause based on a “mixed bag” of facts that included inconclusive field sobriety tests and things an officer “would likely see [being done] by day by sober folks.” (¶9). The court of appeals does not agree.

SCOW.   State v. Delap: SCOW recently rejected the idea that the doctrine of hot pursuit always justifies a forcible warrantless entry into the residence of one suspected of minor criminal activity.  See State v. Weber. But does the doctrine justify warrantless entry in this case, where . . .

The State Public Defender’s biggest rival in the SCOWstats Fantasy League is a team called The Affirmed, which includes hot shots like Aiken & Scoptur, Axley Brynelson, Foley & Lardner, and Gass Weber Mullins.  Guess which law firm The Affirmed recruited during the off season? The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Gulp. Click here […]

The December court of appeals publication order includes no criminal law opinions, so instead of a list of decisions we’ll just take this opportunity to wish you all a happy, healthy 2018.

Kewaunee County DHS v. R.I., 2018 WI App 7; case activity

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of appeals holds that the additional fact finding mandated in TPR proceedings involving an Indian child don’t apply when the parent never had physical or legal custody of the child.

Kenosha County DHS v. V.J.G., 2017AP1150 & 2017AP1151, District 2, 12/27/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.J.G.’s failed to appear at the pretrial and grounds trial in the TPR proceedings regarding his children. The circuit court then discharged V.J.G.’s lawyer, set a new evidentiary and dispostional hearing, and terminated V.J.G.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejects V.J.G.’s challenges to  § 48.23(2)(b)3., the statute on which the court based its actions.

State v. Hector Miguel Ortiz Martinez, 2017AP668, District 1, 12/27/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After his arrest for OWI, Martinez refused to submit to a breath test. The arresting officer gave him the standard notice of intent to revoke operating privileges containing the standard written warning that the driver has 10 days to request a refusal hearing. Martinez requested a refusal hearing, but not within the 10-day limit under § 343.305(10)(a), so the circuit court declined to hold a hearing. (¶¶3-5). Martinez argues that a language barrier and incomplete information from the arresting officer mean the standard notice he was given was not legally sufficient to start the 10-day clock running. Yes it was, says the court of appeals.