On Point

State v. Julio Cesar Pacheco Arias, 2017AP228-CR, 9/26/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2015, Pacheco-Arias was charged with 2 separate OWI offenses just weeks apart. Because he had 2 prior OWI convictions, both of the 2015 OWIs were charged as a misdemeanor OWI-3rd offenses. Under the law in effect in 2015, if the earlier charge resulted in a conviction, the later charge would, by operation of law, become a felony OWI offense. See §346.63(1)(a), §346.65(2)(am)3 (2015-2016).  As you might guess, the defendant wanted the later charge resolved first in order to avoid a felony conviction. 

Today SCOWstats published more data on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. What a difference 34 years has made. In the 1983-84 term, the court issued 118 decisions. In the 2016-2017 term it issued 51 decisions, a bit more than the 43 decisions issued in the 2015-2016 term.

State v. Sarah Ann Wallk, 2017AP61, Distirct 1, 9/26/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Wallk’s claim that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion to detain her for field sobriety tests after she was stopped for speeding. 

Dane County DHS v. N.C., 2017AP788, District 4, 9/21/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

N.C. filed a postdisposition motion challenging the circuit court’s termination of her parental rights to M.M. She argued, among other things, that her trial lawyer was ineffective in failing to have the termination order entered as voluntary, rather than involuntary.

State v. Dennis L. Zemanovic, 2017AP536-CR, 9/20/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

But it’s a close call. (¶10).

J.N.W. v. J.R.P., 2017AP1390, 9/20/17, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Robert, the father of Jessica, appeals the termination of is parental rights. Specifically, he argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he failed to communicate with her for more than six months, and even if he did, whether he had good cause for his failure.

State v. Guy S. Hillary, 2017 WI App 67; case activity (including briefs)

In this case, a deputy applied for a warrant, saying he had

received anonymous information on June 13, 2014 that a subject went to Guy S Hillary’s residence to fix a vehicle and Hillary proceeded to show the complainant a very large marijuana grow in a garage on Hillary’s property. Complainant stated that there are several grow rooms within the garage containing several large marijuana plants. Complainant stated that Hillary was bragging about how much money he makes selling marijuana.

Both parties agree that this did not establish probable cause–their dispute is about whether other information in the affidavit was lawfully obtained and, if not, whether it had to be excised. The court of appeals, however, rejects the state’s concession and declares this tip good enough.

State v. Kory v. Ambroziak, 2017AP22-CR, 9/19/17, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Ambroziak argued that he was incorrectly sentenced for a 2nd-offense OWI because the State had failed to prove the existence of a prior OWI-related offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But the court of appeals held that the State carried its burden. Thus, the circuit court correctly sentenced Ambroziak with second-offense OWI penalties.

In case you missed it, the New York Times ran an interview with him last week. And now the ABA Journal has this story: “Posner says most judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time.’” Both mention his forthcoming book on the topic. He predicts that it will make his […]

State v. Gerald Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.