On Point

State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; 2014AP2981-CR, 2/23/2017; case activity (including briefs)

On June 30, 2013, Wisconsin enacted its biennial budget bill. Among its provisions were changes to the DNA surcharge applied to criminal convictions in Wisconsin. The $250 surcharge became mandatory rather than discretionary for all felonies (rather than just a few as previously), and would now be applied on a per-count basis rather than once per case. The bill also created a new, mandatory $200-per-count surcharge for misdemeanors.

State v. Ricky C. Anderson, 2017 WI App 17; case activity (including briefs)

Ricky Anderson pled to a sexual assault by telephone from prison, with his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all in the courtroom. The court of appeals concludes the court did not do enough to establish either that Anderson knowingly waived his statutory right to be physically present or that the telephone connection was adequate to allow his meaningful participation in the hearing.

In case you have not heard, the ACLU has filed Collins v. City of Milwaukee, a class action lawsuit alleging that the Milwaukee Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program uses racial profiling. Click here to read the complaint. According the ACLU’s press release: In 2011, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that Milwaukee police were seven times more likely […]

Eau Claire County v. Duane D. Collier, 2016AP366, District 3, 2/22/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Collier’s belated challenge to his 1992 civil forfeiture judgment for OWI 1st offense is foreclosed by City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 2016 WI 65, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738.

State v. Thomas M. Gibson, 2016AP1933-CR, 2/22/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer trained in visually estimating speed observed a car driven by Gibson going what he estimated to be 25 m.p.h. in a 15 m.p.h. speed zone. He trained a radar unit on the car, and that said the car was going 26 m.p.h. The officer stopped the car, and Gibson was ultimately arrested for OWI. It turns out the radar unit hadn’t been calibrated since the early years of the internet—1994. (¶¶3-5). No matter, says the court of appeals. The officer still had reasonable suspicion for the stop.

State v. T.T.H., 2016AP1553-1554-CR, District 1, 2/21/17 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.T.H., aged 16,  challenged a circuit court decision waiving his case into adult court on the grounds that: (1) the record did not show that the circuit court gave “paramount consideration” to the juvenile’s best interests, and (2) the circuit court failed to give sufficient consideration to T.T.H.’s suitability for the Serious Juvenile Offender program.  Both challenges failed.

State v. D.T., 2016AP1488, 2/21/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

D.T. sought to withdraw her stipulation that the court had grounds to terminate her parental rights. She said the court made conflicting statements during its colloquy with her, such as  “it’s never too late to meet the conditions of return.” The court of appeals noted that the circuit court later clarified this remark by stressing that the focus of the subsequent dispositional hearing would be on the child’s best interests. 

Oneida County v. Joseph A. Ravens, 2015AP2612, 2/22/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Raven was driving a pickup and towing a trailer when he entered an intersection as the light was changing. Unfortunately for him, Officer Young was watching and claimed the light turned red before Raven entered the intersection. He stopped Raven, smelled intoxicants, and observed slurred speech. After being charged with OWI, Raven moved for suppression and testified that the traffic light was yellow and turned red only after he was actually in the intersection. You can guess whom the trial court believed.

State v. Robert Mario Wheeler, 2016AP55-CR, 2/21/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Robert Wheeler was tried for reckless injury and being a felon in possession of a gun arising out of a single shooting incident. To keep the jury from hearing about his status as a felon, the parties stipulated that he was and agreed that the gun possession charge would be decided by the court. Wheeler’s counsel specifically noted the possibility that the two counts could be decided differently, given the different factfinders. (¶5).

Question presented:

Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction?