On Point

State v. Steven W. Heath, 2014AP2466-CR, District 4, 9/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Heath challenges the blood draw evidence in his OWI prosecution, claiming that the paramedic who did the draw wasn’t a “person acting under the direction of a physician” as required by § 343.305(5)(b) and that the method and manner of the blood draw was not constitutionally reasonable. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Zimbal’s post-remand substitution request as untimely where Zimbal orally requested that the judge recuse himself the day before remittitur and was not appointed counsel until after the 20-day time limit?

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in holding that Suriano forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to counsel after three appointed attorneys withdrew from representing him because the court did not warn Suriano that forfeiture was a possibility and did not advise Suriano of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation?

State v. Lory F. Kerk, 2015AP2608-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court didn’t err in allowing the state to elicit testimony from its expert toxicologist that Kerk was impaired by the amount of alcohol and prescription drugs found in her blood.

State v. Timothy A. Giese, 2015AP1838-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court’s recent decision in City of Eau Claire v. Booth Britton, 2016 WI 65, disposes of Giese’s claim that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over a mistakenly charged second-offense OWI.

State v. Gary Abdullah Salaam, 2014AP2666-CR & 2667-CR, 9/13/2016, District 1 (Not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Salaam raises four claims challenging his convictions, at jury trial, of recklessly endangering safety, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of witness intimidation. The court affirms as to the first two counts but finds insufficient evidence as to the witness intimidation charges.

State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, petition for review granted 1/18/2017, reversed, 2017 WI 104; case activity (including briefs)

This decision is important to anyone who litigates claims for plea withdrawal under § 971.08(2) because it helps clarify the law in two ways. First, it provides two examples of a circuit court’s failure to comply with § 971.08(1)(c)’s requirement that the defendant be warned about the immigration consequences of a plea. Second, it explains what a defendant must allege to make a sufficient showing that his or her plea is likely to result in deportation.

State v. Armin G. Wand, III, 2015AP1366-CR, 9/8/16, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Armin Wand and his brother Jeremy were convicted of crimes relating to a fire at Wand’s residence that killed his three sons, seriously injured his wife and caused the death of the fetus she was carrying. Before he pled, Wand moved to suppress statements he made to officers on two consecutive days; the court suppressed the first day’s as involuntary but admitted the second day’s. He appeals on various grounds connected to the admission of those later statements.

State v. Kerry A. Siekierzynski, 2015AP2350-CR, District 3, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Siekierzynski’s acts during an angry, emotional confrontation with his ex-wife over child visitation were enough to support the guilty verdict for disorderly conduct.

State v. Mary G. Zinda, 2016AP455-CR, District 2, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Two police officers approached Zinda as she got out of her car on her own driveway, but this did not amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. And even if it was a seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion to investigate whether Zinda was operating while intoxicated.