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.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Discretionary authority to dismiss refusal charges is limited to cases in which defendant pleads guilty to underlying OWI
State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2013 WI 106, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; opinion for a unanimous court by Justice Crooks; case activity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.
Federal district court grants habeas relief based on violation of Confrontation Clause; calls Wisconsin court’s harmless error analysis “a sterilized, post-hoc rationalization for upholding the result”
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.
State v. Andres Romero-Georgana, 2012AP55, petition for review granted 12/19/13
Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity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.
Capitol rotunda singer gets civil pre-trial discovery in State’s action to collect forfeiture
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.”
Drive-through employee’s observation and tip provide reasonable suspicion for OWI stop
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?
State ex rel. Lorenzo Kyles v. William Pollard, 2012AP378-W, petition for review granted 12/17/13
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.
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue officers in resisting arrest case acted without lawful authority
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.
Grant of continuance under speedy trial statute also continued deadline for trial under Intrastate Detainer Act
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.
Court to State: Ends of adult court jurisdiction don’t justify means violating juvenile code
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.
Admitting photo of victim and family at homicide trial is harmless error
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.
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.