On Point

State v. Maurice C. Hall, 2013AP209-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A competency evaluation found Hall competent to proceed, though his mental health history caused Deborah Collins, the examiner, to “urge court officers to remain sensitive in the event of any significant changes in his overall mental status as such a factor may signal decline in his competency and warrant his reexamination.”

State v. Lewis Allen Stokes, 2012AP2621-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Probable cause to arrest for OWI was established based on: police observations of Stokes speeding and weaving in and out of traffic without signaling at 11:00 p.m.; Stokes’s slurred speech and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath; and Stokes’s argumentative and combative attitude toward the police. (¶¶4-5, 10).

State v. Richard H. Hogenson, 2013AP389-CR, District 3, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Though it is “a very close case” (¶14), the court of appeals holds an officer had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop based on a burned-out headlamp and conduct field sobriety tests:

¶15      In this case, at the moment [Officer] Jenatscheck requested that Hogenson participate in field sobriety tests,

State v. Albert A., 2013AP549, District 3, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Albert sought to stay juvenile sex offender registration under State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, ¶40, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, but the circuit court denied the request. The court discounted a psychosexual evaluator’s opinion that Albert was low risk to reoffend because the judge believed the evaluator’s opinion reflected an actuarial assessment of group,

Petitions for Review.  SCOW plans to hold a petitions conference on Monday–a good thing since as of September 30th there were a whopping 331 petitions for review pending.  One was filed as far back as 2009 (2009AP1955), 10 were filed in consolidated cases back in 2010 (2009AP2266 et al.) and 8 were filed in 2012.  The rest landed in the clerk’s office during 2013.  Of those 331 petitions for review,

State v. David J. Lawrence, 2013AP796, District 4, 10/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court knew of Lawrence’s mental health diagnoses at sentencing, but after sentencing Lawrence was hospitalized after a psychological breakdown. (¶¶3-4). He requested sentence modification, arguing the court was not aware of all his diagnoses or his medication regimen. (¶5). Assuming that information was a “new factor,” the circuit court gave a reasoned explanation for why it declined to modify the sentence,

State v. Jeffrey G. Vanden Huevel, 2013AP1107-CR, District 3, 10/8/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

After rolling his car over early one morning Vanden Huevel left the scene of the accident and went back to his cabin. (¶¶1-7). A sheriff’s deputy named Kelley located the cabin and started knocking on a sliding patio door. (¶¶8-9). Kelley could see someone inside and told the person to open the door,

Court of Appeals certification; case activity

When deciding a defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing under Wis. Stat. § 974.07, must the circuit court presume that the DNA testing results will be exculpatory and then assess whether such presumed exculpatory results would lead to a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted?

The issue here turns on the meaning of § 974.07(7)(a)2.

State v. Taylor M.S., 2013AP1337, District 2, 10/2/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to waive jurisdiction over Taylor’s charges, rejecting Taylor’s contention that the court failed to consider all of the factors in § 938.18(5), in particular the availability of treatment and services as required by § 938.18(5)(c):

¶6        We agree with the State that the circuit court sufficiently addressed the adequacy and availability of services.

Question presented:

Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?

Lower court opinion: People v. Lorenzo Prado Navarette, et al., No. A132353, 2012 WL 4842651 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This is a very significant Fourth Amendment case that could change the law in Wisconsin by limiting State v.