On Point

Fond du Lac County v. Christy Ann Kasten, 2017AP343, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The only real issue in this case is whether the court, in this bench trial, had sufficient evidence to conclude that Kasten had driven within three hours of her blood draw at 10:52 p.m. The court of appeals holds that it did:

State v. Brad L. Conger, 2017AP860-CR, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brad Conger went on trial for an OWI and the associated PAC. His defense was an “alcohol curve” theory that the breath tests result did not reflect his true BAC at the time he was driving. His attorney moved to strike a juror who sat on another OWI/PAC case the preceding week–one featuring the same defense attorney, where the jury convicted on the PAC and apparently rejected the offered alcohol curve defense. The circuit court found the juror unbiased; the court of appeals now affirms.

The other day we linked to an article discussing SCOTUS’s math allergies. Today we note some commentary about the Court’s need for fact checkers, discussing a detailed report titled “It’s a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren’t Hard to Find.”

State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2016AP2455-CR, petition for bypass granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (based on the parties’ court of appeals briefs)

Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply when there is no misconduct by a law enforcement officer in arresting an individual on an active commitment order that is later found to be void ab initio?

State v. DeAnthony K. Muldrow, 2017 WI App 47, petition for review granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does lifetime GPS monitoring mandated under § 301.48 constitute “punishment,” thus requiring a judge to advise a defendant that he or she will be subject to the monitoring as a consequence of a guilty or no contest plea?

State v. Michael L. Cox, 2016AP1745-CR, certification granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from certification):

This case raises a single question: whether a sentencing court retains any discretion under Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2015-16), to waive DNA surcharges for crimes committed after January 1, 2014.

State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, petition for review granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. When assessing the prejudice of defense counsel’s deficient performance in a multiple-count jury trial, may a court divide the prejudice analysis on a count-by-count basis, finding prejudice warranting relief on some counts from the single trial but not others?

2. If a party fails to file a petition for review following an unfavorable Court of Appeals ruling on a particular argument, may the party re-litigate the same question in a second appeal of the same case?

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously.

State v. M.P., 2016AP2104 & 2016AP2105, District 1, 10/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the dispositional hearing on the petition to terminate M.P.’s parental rights to his two children the court heard evidence that the foster parents intended to allow M.P. to continue to have contact with the children if his parental rights were terminated. (¶8). The court of appeals rejects M.P.’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this evidence.

State v. Marcellous D. Tally-Clayborne, 2016AP1912-CR, District 1, 10/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Tally-Clayborne challenges his carrying a concealed weapon conviction, arguing he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched because police had no information suggesting he was involved in any illegal activity. The court of appeals holds both the stop and pat-down search were justified.