On Point

State v. Brianna L. Flahavan, 2016AP1133-CR, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make–bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake–if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”

—Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

State v. Elbe, 2016AP2012-2013, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The Elbes were charged with disorderly conduct back in 1996. They requested the appointment of counsel, but the trial court found that they were not indigent.  This caused them to plead no contest. Twenty years later they moved to vacate their convictions arguing that the 1996 decision violated their 6th Amendment right to counsel. They lost in the trial court and in the court of appeals.

State v. Jeff C. Hilgers, 2017 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Hilgers, a correctional officer at a county jail, had sex with an inmate while she was on home detention. He was properly convicted of second degree sexual assault under § 940.225(2)(h), which prohibits a correctional officer from having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with “an individual who is confined in a correctional institution.”

State v. Brandon M. Swiecichowski, 2016AP1808-CR, 1/25/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mr. Swiecichowski was pulled over after an officer saw his vehicle driving in a construction area signed as being closed to through traffic. Before pulling him over the officer ran his plates and found the vehicle to be registered to an owner who lived seven or eight miles away from the construction zone.

State v. Michael Chough, 2016AP406-CR, District 2, 1/25/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Chough’s challenge to the reliability of expert testimony regarding his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving fails under State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687.

State v. Carter, 2017 WI App 9, petition for review granted 5/15/17; case activity (including briefs)

This case is a companion to State v. Hager, in which the court held that the amended discharge statute does not require a committed person to prove he is not dangerous in order to get a discharge trial.

State v. David Hager, Jr., 2017 WI App 8, petition for review granted 5/15/17; reversed 4/19/18; case activity (including briefs)

This is the first (likely) published case to construe the 2013 amendments to the ch. 980 discharge petition standard. The court of appeals holds that while the legislature required a committed person seeking a discharge trial to meet a higher burden of production, it did not permit courts to deny a trial based on an assessment that the evidence as a whole favors the state.

State v. P.T., 2016AP1460, 1/24/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.T. challenged a circuit court decision terminating his parental rights to his son on 2 grounds: (1) his stipulation to ground for termination was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary under Bangert, and (2) the postdisposition court should not have reviewed the transcript of the stipulation colloquy when deciding issue (1). He lost on both counts.

State v. Patrick Kozel, 2017 WI 3, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision,  2016AP656-CR, 1/12/16; case activity (including briefs)

Kozel, arrested for OWI-2^nd and subjected to a blood draw by an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at a county jail, challenged the draw as violating §343.305(5)(b) (2011-12) and as unconstitutional, because  it was not performed  “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” ¶43, citing to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966).

State v. C.M., 2016AP1321, 1/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After charging J.M. in juvenile court with crimes ranging from child sexual assault to disorderly conduct, the State sought to waive J.M. into adult court by arguing that Lincoln Hills was not an appropriate place for C.M. because, according to the recent news reports, it is so awful. The circuit court cited the news reports in granting waiver. That was error, but it’s harmless because there are other facts in the record supporting the waiver decision.