On Point

State v. Raymand L. Vannieuwenhoven, 2022AP882-CR, 4/30/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In this appeal from a cold case a murder conviction, the court issues a decision recommended for publication holding that law enforcement lawfully seized Vannieuwenhoven’s saliva and thereafter lawfully analyzed the DNA sample created from the saliva. The fact that law enforcement used a “ruse” to trick Vannieuwenhoven into licking an envelope under the false pretense that he was completing a voluntary survey about his “general satisfaction with the Oconto County Sheriff’s Office” did not make the state’s subsequent use of the saliva or Vannieuwenhoven’s DNA unlawful. While the facts are unique, the court explains that “our caselaw supports this conclusion.” Op., ¶2.

Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.

Robert J. Pope v. Je’Leslie Taylor, No. 23-2894, 5/6/24, affirming Pope v. Kemper, 21-CV-0346 (E.D. Wis. 9/1/23)

In a refreshing defense win that cuts through the procedural weeds and directly attacks the unjust nature of Pope’s treatment by Wisconsin’s appellate courts, the Seventh Circuit wastes no time in affirming the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.

In March, the court of appeals ordered the publication of two criminal law related decisions. In April, the court ordered the publication of one such decision.

Racine County v. P.Z., 2024AP146-FT, 5/1/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a relatively straightforward appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects P.Z.’s sufficiency challenges and affirms.

State v. Paul R. Noble, 2023AP1444-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While Noble’s arguments on appeal appear to have substantial merit, the court of appeals declines to address the merits because the state abandoned the appeal and thereby conceded that “Noble’s arguments are correct.”

State v. Megan E. Zeien, 2023AP1787-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you’ve ever wondered whether you have a Bangert claim concerning a circuit court’s failure to “ascertain personally whether a factual basis exists to support [your client’s] plea,” this unpublished but citable decision is worth a read. Unfortunately, the decision is a bit unclear about how exactly the state may seek to establish that Zeien’s pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at an evidentiary hearing. See Op., ¶¶19, 22.

We thought our readers might be interested in this in-depth report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel regarding the issue of obtaining diverse juries in Milwaukee County, with quotes from SPD’s Meera Al-Hanaey as well as Judges Danielle Shelton and Jonathan Richards.

Jared L. Spencer v. Michael Meisner, 21-cv-0326 (E.D. Wis. 4/26/24).

In an intriguing habeas win, the district court swats away the usual arguments about “reliance” and “harmlessness” in order to find that Spencer’s constitutional right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information was violated.