On Point

State v. John D. Harris, 2014AP1292-CR, District 1, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Harris isn’t entitled to a new trial based on alleged errors in the jury instruction for disorderly conduct, and the evidence is sufficient to support the guilty verdicts for that charge and a charge of battery.

State v. Joseph S. Cali, 2014AP493-CR, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the recent decision in County of Grant v. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 356 Wis. 2d 343, 850 N.W.2d 253, the court of appeals holds that Cali wasn’t seized when a police officer, thinking Cali might be lost, pulled his squad car near Cali without activating his lights, got out and approached Cali, and from “normal talking distance” asked Cali “what was going on, if I could help him with anything.” (¶¶2-3).

State v. Peter J. Long, 2014AP707-CR, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police acted reasonably in stopping Long under an “attempt to locate” (ATL) that was based on information from identifiable persons as well as on Long’s own statements, and the officers’ manner in stopping him did not convert the stop into an arrest.

State v. Cody J. Nolan, 2014AP1359-CR, District 3/4, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the red car Nolan was driving had been involved in a reportable accident and was leaving the scene or was assisting others in leaving the scene of a reportable accident in violation of § 346.70(1) or (1m)(b), as there was no evidence supporting a reasonable belief the alleged accident involved sufficient property damage to make it reportable under the statute.

City of Chippewa Falls v. Douglas M. Buchli, 2014AP1422, District 3, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was probable cause to arrest Buchli for OWI despite the fact the police investigation discovered inconsistent information—including an admission by Buchli’s companion, Mahoney, that she was driving.

City of Brookfield v. Cassandra L. Gissal, 2014AP1751-FT, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At trial Gissal challenged the admissibility of her statements to police because she wasn’t given Miranda warnings, but the trial court ruled she wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes. On appeal she abandons this claim and argues instead that allowing the officer to testify to her statements violated her Fifth Amendment privilege and that she wouldn’t have testified at trial if the officer had been barred from relating her statements.

Our very own Mike Tobin reports on last Thursday’s big win on expunction in SCOW. See Mike’s article for the Collateral Consequences Resource Center here.

Will Chief Justice Abrahamson lose her job in 2015? Click here for more.

AAG gets bench slapped because appellate record literally emits foul stench. Click here.

Are plea bargains confessions? Brandon Garrett says “no”. Click here.

Review of two court of appeals decisions (one published, one unpublished) that will be argued together. State v. Shata (case activity) and State v. Ortiz-Mondragon (case activity)

Issue in Shata (composed by On Point)

Whether the defendant, a foreign national, should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because his trial counsel failed to provide him with “complete and accurate” information about the deportation consequences of pleading guilty?

Court of appeals request for certification granted; case activity

Issue (per court of appeals certification)

Whether, under the circumstances of this case, a suffiency of the evidence challenge requires an appellate court to measure the evidence against the instructions the jury received, as the court did in State v. Wulff, 207 Wis. 2d 143, 557 N.W.2d 813 (1997), or instead against statutory requirements,

State v. Kearney W. Hemp, 2014 WI 129, 12/18/14, reversing a published court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

At last, a unanimous SCOW decision settles how §973.015 is really supposed to work. Upon a young person’s successful completion of a sentence or probation, the detaining or probationary authority must issue a certificate of discharge to the court. This alerts the clerk to expunge the record. No petition is necessary. And once a court grants expungement, and the young person performs as required, the court cannot reverse its decision.