On Point

Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Whether the defendant’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, which alleged postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a plea withdrawal claim on direct appeal, contained sufficient allegations to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Whether postconviction counsel was ineffective under the standard set forth in Smith v.

State v. Anica C. C. Bausch, 2014 WI App 12; case activity

Bausch participated in a “Solidarity Sing Along” at the State Capitol in the fall of 2012.  The Capitol Police cited her for violating Wis. Admin. Code ADM sec. 2.14(2)(v). Bausch pled “not guilty” and served the State with requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents.  The State responded with a “Motion in Opposition to Application of Civil Discovery.”

State v. Mary J. Kamuchey, 2013 AP1684-CR, District 4, 12/19/13 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Issue:  Whether an anonymous “citizen informant’s”  call from a McDonald’s drive-through at 2:00 a.m., describing an argumentative driver who smelled of alcohol and was believed to be drunk, provided reasonable suspicion for OWI stop even though the officer who made the stop did not observe signs of erratic driving or intoxication?

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision that is not available online; case activity

Issue:  Whether a client alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s unavailability or failure to respond to a request for an appeal during the 20-day period for filing a notice of intent to pursue postconviction must raise his claim via a § 974.06 motion or a Knight petition?

SCOW is wading into a procedural thicket with this case. 

State v. Andrew K. Valiquette, 2013AP909-CR, District 4, 12/19/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Valiquette, convicted of resisting arrest, argues the police lacked lawful authority when they moved to pat him down for weapons, and asserts trial counsel’s failure to pursue that defense was based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The court of appeals disagrees, concluding instead that trial counsel’s testimony indicates she made a strategic decision to focus on the issue of whether Valiquette resisted instead of whether the police were acting with lawful authority.

State v. Malcolm A. Butler, 2014 WI App 4; case activity

The 120-day deadline for trying a case under the Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11(2), is explicitly “subject to” the speedy trial statute, § 971.10; thus, the Intrastate Detainer Act incorporates the provision of the speedy trial statute that allows for continuances for good cause, § 971.10(3)(a), and those continuances may go beyond the 120-day deadline.

State v. Cody Phillips, 2014 WI App 3; case activity

This case reached the court of appeals via a petition for leave to appeal a non-final order.

The State’s juvenile delinquency petition alleged that Phillips committed one count of 1st-dgree sexual assault of child by use or threat of force and a second count of 2nd-degree assault of a child.  At the State’s request, the juvenile court waived Phillips into adult court on both counts and ultimately pled no contest to two counts of 2nd-degree sexual assault of a child. 

State v. George A. Trinka, 2013AP539, District 2, 12/18/13; (not recommended for publication); case activity

A jury found Trinka guilty of 1st-dgree reckless homicide and 1st-degree recklessly endangering safety, both with use of a weapon.  The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence a family photograph of the victim, his wife, and their children.  Trinka argued that the photo was irrelevant and prejudicial in that it improperly invoked the jury’s sympathy. 

Review of unpublished per curium court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from state’s petition for review)

Whether, if it was error for the trial court to prevent a defense witness from testifying about particular facts relevant to the defense, the error was harmless.

Hunt was charged with child sexual assault and causing a child to view a depiction of sexual activity, the latter charge based on an alleged video on Hunt’s cell phone showing a man and woman having intercourse.

Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Did the adult court lose jurisdiction or competency to proceed against a juvenile by failing to make a specific finding at the preliminary hearing that there was probable cause to believe the juvenile committed an offense that gave the adult court jurisdiction over the juvenile?

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Toliver’s motion for “reverse”