Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
SCOW: No breach in recommending consecutive sentences
State v. Patrick K. Tourville, 2016 WI 17, 3/15/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Patrick Tourville pled to four crimes in a deal that called on the state to recommend a sentence no higher than the one recommended by the PSI. The PSI recommended a prison term for each count; the state recommended that these terms be run consecutively. So when the state asked for consecutive time even though the PSI didn’t, did it honor its commitment to follow the PSI? If you answered “no,” the one thing we know about you is that you’re not a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
No need to warn defendant his actions might result in forfeiture of counsel
State v. Jack M. Suriano, 2015AP959-CR, 3/15/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/13/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 42; case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court never warned Suriano that forfeiture of his right to counsel was a possibility and did not engage Suriano in a colloquy about the difficulties and dangers of self-representation. Nonetheless, its finding that Suriano forfeited his right to appointed counsel is affirmed because the warning and colloquy are only “recommended,” and not required, procedures.
CHIPS order didn’t violate right to substantive due process
State v. J.S., 2015AP707, District 1, 3/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the failure to assume parental responsibility statute, § 48.415(6), to J.S. did not violate his right to substantive due process because J.S.’s own behavior, not the CHIPS order removing his daughter S.L. from her parental home, was what prevented him from taking part in S.L.’s daily supervision and care.
Weaving within lane, other circumstances supported traffic stop
Columbia County v. Stephen M. Kokesh, 2015AP1650, District 4, 3/10/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The totality of the circumstances—the driving observed by the officer and the time of the driving—provided reasonable suspicion stop Kobkesh’s car, despite Kokesh’s creative attempt to show otherwise.
Object found during frisk could be removed from pocket
State v. Steve C. Deterding, 2015AP195-CR, 3/10/16, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A police officer lawfully removed the object he felt in Deterring’s pants pocket during a lawful pat-down for weapons.
State v. Patrick K. Kozel, 2015AP656-CR, petition for review granted 3/7/16
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
What is required to show that an evidentiary blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician” for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(5)(b)?
Counsel not ineffective for not striking juror
State v. Todd Brian Tobatto, 2016 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)
The news, in this otherwise run-of-the-mill case, is the standard of review.
Any error in excusing juror or allowing notes during closing harmless
State v. Jesus C. Gonzalez, 2015AP784-CR, 3/8/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Gonzalez raises two challenges to his conviction, at jury trial, of reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. The court of appeals finds any error harmless.
Audiovisual recording of child victim’s forensic interview was properly admitted
State v. Beverly Reshall Holt, 2013AP2738-CR, 3/8/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The trial court did not err in admitting the audiovisual recording of the forensic interview of Caleb, one of the child victims, at Holt’s trial for child sexual assault.
Accident reporting statute covers injury regardless of monetary cost
City of Rhinelander v. Thomas V. Wakely, 2015Ap302, 3/8/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
While the accident reporting requirement under § 346.70(1) requires that property damage reach a certain minimum “apparent [monetary] extent” before the accident is reportable, it does not require a minimum monetary extent for personal injuries before the accident is reportable.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.