On Point

State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.

State v. Rachel L. Huck, 2014AP2190-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Having stopped a vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the registered owner had a suspended license, the officer was entitled to continue the detention to ask the driver—who clearly wasn’t the registered owner—for his driver’s license.

State v. Benjamin J. Strohman, 2014AP1265-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for prosecution); case activity (including briefs)

Rejecting the state’s arguments that the statute of limitation had been tolled, the court of appeals holds the state could not re-charge Strohman for an OWI offense that was improperly treated as a first offense because the time limit for charging the offense had expired.

State v. Tyler M. Pasch, 2014AP1193-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Another day, another decision holding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to blood drawn without a warrant or exigent circumstances because the blood draw happened before Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), effectively overruled State […]

State v. Annette Morales-Rodriguez, 2014AP1438-CR, District 1, 2/3/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs

A defendant must assert that she was denied her constitutional right to the counsel of her choice before trial, not after. Also, an attorney clears the “deficient performance” prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where he withdraws as counsel based on a possible conflict even if the client wants him as her lawyer and will waive the conflict.

State v. Lavonte M. Price, 2014AP1189-CR, District 1, 2/13/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs

This decision examines the line between a trial court’s active participation in the plea negotiation process, which Wisconsin law prohibits, and trial court’s comments, suggestions and lectures, which are permitted under Wisconsin law.  What the trial court did here was just fine, said the court of appeals.

State v. Michael W. Crute, 2015 WI App 15; case activity

An administrative rule (§ Adm 2.14(2)(vm)(intro.) and 5.) requires a permit for any rally, meeting, or similar event held in a state building, and persons participating in an unpermitted event can be ticketed for “unlawful assembly.” But the rule did not contain a minimum group size, so it covered unpermitted events undertaken by as few as one person. The court of appeals holds the rule is not a valid time, place, and manner regulation under the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. It also rejects the state’s attempt to save the rule by construing it to apply only to groups over 20 persons.

State . Michelle M., 2014ap1539, District 1; 1/27/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this TPR case, a circuit court instructed a jury using the version of WIS JI-Children 346 that allows consideration of whether a mother has exposed her child to a hazardous living environment. The court should have given the prior version, which did not mention this consideration. According to the court of appeals, the jury could consider the point whether the instruction explicitly mentioned it or not.

State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2015 WI 6, 1/27/15), reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity

Alexander claimed he is entitled to resentencing because his sentence was based in part on compelled statements he made to his supervision agent. The supreme court rejects his claim after concluding that the circuit court did not rely on the compelled statements in imposing sentence.

State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the officer. (¶¶5-7, 14).