On Point

State v. Thomas A. Jahnke, 2013AP1576-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated depends on: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant’s timely assertion of the speedy-trial right; and prejudice to the defense from the delay. Prejudice is assessed by considering pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the defendant,

State v. Gregory Garro, 2013AP342-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Garro waived the right to counsel before trial after two retained lawyers withdrew because he couldn’t pay them. (3). Garro told the court he couldn’t afford the fees quoted by the lawyers, but did have some money to hire counsel. (4). After being given time to look for a lawyer he could afford,

OLR v. Bridget E. Boyle, 2011AP1767-D, per curiam, case activity

Communicating with a client who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison can be challenging.  Still, the Supreme Court Rules apply whether an attorney is hired or appointed and whether her clients are difficult or cooperative.

In this ethics decision, SCOW found that Attorney Boyle committed a host of SCR violations, including failure to keep her clients (both prisoners) reasonably informed about the status of their cases;

State v. Mark K. Schrick, 2013AP1166-CR, District 4, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Actually, this case concerns more than just dentures.  A jury convicted Schrick of operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of §346.63(1)(b). On appeal, Schrick challenged (1) the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a directed verdict, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and (3)  a jury instruction saying that by statute the administered breath test was considered accurate. 

Barron County DH&HS v. Tara H., 2013AP2250, District 3, 12/27/13, unpublished; case activity

This is Tara H.’s 2nd trip to the court of appeals regarding this TPR.  The first time she won a new dispositional hearing.  At the start of that 2nd dispositional hearing, Tara’s counsel asked the trial court about the relevant time period for determining whether termination of her parental rights was in her son’s best interests. 

State v. Carl J. Opelt, 2013AP1798, District IV, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity.

Police arrested Opelt for OWI.  While transporting him to the hospital, an officer asked him 14 times to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his blood.  The circuit court found that Opelt refused to promptly submit to the test and thus revoked his operating privileges pursuant to implied consent law,

State v. David Lawrence Eastman, 2013AP1401-CR, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A police officer may conduct a traffic stop when he has grounds to reasonably suspect that either a crime or a traffic violation has or will be committed.   See State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶23, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569; State v.

State v. Scott J. Stelzer, 2013AP1555-CR, District 2, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication), case activity

After being convicted of his 3rd OWI offense, Stelzer moved to exclude his 2nd OWI (which occurred in 1996) from the calculation of his prior convictions on the grounds that he was not represented by counsel when he pled guilty to it.  Nor did he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at that time. 

State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2013 WI 106, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; opinion for a unanimous court by Justice Crooks; case activity

In State v. Brooks, 113 Wis. 2d 347, 348-49, 335 N.W.2d 354 (1983), the supreme court held that a circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge under § 343.305 after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI.

Mark D. Jensen v. James Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)

Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, has ordered a new trial for Mark Jensen, who was convicted of killing his wife Julie based in part on the use of oral and written statements she made before her death in which she told police she suspected her husband was trying to kill her.