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.
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2009AP3073-CR, District 2, 5/15/13
Court of appeals certification; case activity
Issue certified:
Is an OWI defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated when a supervisor of the state crime lab testifies that a lab report prepared and certified by another, but unavailable, lab analyst establishes the defendant’s illegal blood alcohol concentration? Does it make a difference that the lab supervisor said it was “his” opinion even though he did not perform any of the testing himself and simply noted that the unavailable analyst followed the proper protocol?
Search and Seizure — Probable cause to administer PBT; admitting numeric PBT result at suppression hearing
Village of Muscoda v. Samuel R. Anderson, 2012AP2216, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had probable cause to administer a PBT where: the officer noticed an odor of intoxicants emanating from Anderson or his vehicle; Anderson had bloodshot eyes and slightly slurred speech and admitted he had consumed five drinks over the course of the night; and Anderson’s performance on the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests suggested he might be intoxicated.
Waiver of right to testify
State v. Leshurn Hunt, 2010AP2516, District 4, 5/16/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Issue: Was defendant’s decision not to testify at trial knowing, intelligent and voluntary on the grounds that; (a) the court conducted a defective colloquy; (b) the defendant was coerced to waive his right to testify; and (c) the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel?
Holding: Hunt’s waiver was fine. The legal test is set forth in State v.
OWI – probable cause to administer PBT
State v. Travis M. Ranta, 2012AP1663, District 4 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Police were called to a campsite where the defendant admitted to drinking with underage individuals. An hour later, another officer was called to the same site, where he observed the defendant behaving in a “belligerent, uncooperative [and] loud” manner. A PBT showed the defendant had a .156 BAC, so he was informed that he couldn’t drive his truck out of the campsite.
Misdemeanor probation period may not be increased under § 973.09(2)(b)2.
State v. Aaron S. Loos, 2012AP2154-CR, District 3, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Though Loos was convicted of one misdemeanor and one felony at the same time, the maximum one-year term of probation for the misdemeanor under § 973.09(2)(a)1r. could not be increased by one year under § 973.09(2)(b)2. That statute may be applied only to increase the maximum term of probation on a felony conviction,
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim rejected; multiple alleged errors either not prejudicial or not deficient
State v. Ronell Howlett, 2012AP1672-CR, District 1, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Howlett, a school bus driver, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault of C.A., a nine-year-old child he was responsible for driving. (¶¶1-3, 7). Adopting significant portions of the trial court’s postconviction ruling, the court of appeals rejects his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways:
- Failing to introduce C.A.’s attendance records: C.A.
Sufficiency of the evidence. Plain error — leading questions, closing arguments, jury instructions.
State v. Brian L. Jackson, 2012AP1008-CR, District 1, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Sufficiency of the evidence
In a necessarily fact-specific discussion (¶¶4-5, 10-12), the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support Jackson’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm despite the existence of evidence to the contrary, which included the lack of Jackson’s DNA on the gun (and other objects) he supposedly discarded during a foot pursuit and the fact the officers lost sight of the men they were pursuing at various times during the chase:
¶13 The …
Frivolous Findings!
From The Huffington Post:
Texas Judge’s Order Upholding ‘Bikini Tops For Strippers’ Law Is Completely Hilarious
From ABA Journal:
Judge jails lawyer and client over tardy arrival for jury selection
(Practice pointer: don’t be late for court.)
Partners ahoy! DLA Piper charters cruise ship for meeting
(Is this is the silk stocking firm’s twist on the SPD conference?)
Judge boldly uses Star Trek references in opinion blasting lawyers who sued porn downloaders
(Imagine the appeal!)
Can remote texter be liable if driver is distracted by message?
Court of Appeals Enforces Stipulation to Forgo Appeal in TPR Case; Denies Discretionary Reversal
Ronald J.R. v. Alexis L.A., 2013 WI App 79; case activity
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment decision finding grounds to terminate Alexis L.A.’s parental rights. The father, Ronald J.R., sought termination on two grounds and won summary judgment on the first one. The parties then stipulated that Ronald would withdraw the second ground, if Alexis would agree not to appeal the partial summary judgment on the first ground.
Multiplicity — conviction for inchoate crime of conspiracy and completed crime under § 939.72(2). Constitutional right to speedy trial. Prosecutorial misconduct — failing to disclose sentencing consideration for a state’s witness
State v. Michael Lock, 2013 WI App 80; case activity
Multiplicity — conviction for conspiracy and for completed crime under § 939.72(2)
Lock was convicted of conspiracy to solicit prostitutes and conspiracy to pander between 1998 and 2003. Based on conduct in four specific months in 2002, he was also convicted of four counts of soliciting prostitutes as a party to the crime and four counts of pandering as party to the crime.
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.