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.
Confession – consideration of truthfulness of confession when deciding voluntariness
State v. Douglas H. Stream, Case No. 2011AP2051, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly denied the defendant’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, which claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to references to the truthfulness of his confession during a Goodchild hearing to determine voluntariness of the confession and that his postconviction lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge his trial lawyer’s effectiveness.
Denial of right to self-representation — competence to represent oneself; search and seizure — probable cause, automobile exception
State v. Robert L. Tatum, Case No. 2011AP2439-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Denial of right to self-representation – competence to represent oneself
The circuit court properly denied Tatum the right to represent himself based on his limited education and understanding of legal procedures, as evidenced by his statements and behavior in court. (¶13). While the circuit court found Tatum competent to proceed under Wis.
Sentence modification — post-sentencing assistance to law enforcement
State v. John Doe, 2012AP414-CR, District 1, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for sentence modification based on his assistance to law enforcement. The circuit court considered the factors established by State v. Doe, 2005 WI App 68, 280 Wis. 2d 731, 697 N.W.2d 101, for determining when post-sentencing assistance to law enforcement is a new factor,
Traffic stop — no visible front license plate
State v. Kevin O’Connor, 2012AP1638-CR, District 2, 1/23/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Police lawfully stopped defendant because the vehicle he was driving did not have a visible front license plate. While there are exceptions to the statute requiring vehicles to display a front plate (Wis. Stat. § 341.15), the “great majority” of vehicles on the road are required to have a front plate.
Victim impact statement — consideration at sentencing
State v. Jack Minniecheske, 2012AP1133, District 3, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, not eligible for publication); case activity
Because Wis. Stat. § 950.04(1v)(m) gives victims the right to provide statements at sentencing, the circuit court properly considered a victim impact statement despite defendant’s objection to it as “frivolous” and his claim the victim stole his property. “Moreover, given Minniecheske’s sentence, a fine and costs, there is no indication in the record that the court sentenced Minniecheske more harshly because of the allegations in the victim impact statement.” (¶8).
Traffic stop – anonymous tip corroborated by officer’s observations
State v. Tamara Jo Potter, 2012AP1605-CR, District 3, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Police lawfully stopped the defendant based on information from an anonymous tip that was corroborated by the officer’s observations. Minnesota police told Douglas County dispatch that it had received a tip of a “swerving” car heading into Superior. An officer in Superior located a car meeting the description and followed it.
Due process – destruction of evidence by the state
State v. Viliunas, 2012AP2284-CR, District 2, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
State’s destruction of video from police car’s dashboard camera did not violate OWI defendant’s due process rights. The defendant, who was found in the driver’s seat of a ditched car, claimed another person had been driving—although not until his jury trial, which occurred over a year after the incident, and after Viliunas had missed two earlier trial dates.
TPR – grounds; continuing CHIPS, failure to assume parental responsibility instead of continuing parental disability
State v. Angie A., 2012AP2240, District 1, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The state properly brought TPR petition alleging grounds under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2) (continuing need of protection and services) and § 48.416(6) (failure to assume parental responsibility) instead of § 48.415(3) (continuing parental disability, a ground that specifically targets parents with a mental illness or developmental disability), because the state could and did make a reasonable effort to provide Angie A.
TPR — disposition; erroneous exercise of discretion
Pierce County v. Troy H., 2012AP2525 and 2012AP2526, District 3, 2/19/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court termination decision was the result of an erroneous exercise of discretion because the court failed to consider the statutory factors:
¶8 Troy asserts the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because the record shows that the court did not consider any of the Wis.
Submission to squad car’s red-and-blue emergency lights is a “seizure”
State v. Brian A. Gottschalk, 2012AP2351, District III (not recommended for publication). Case activity.
Wow! Two decisions overruling the denial suppression motions in one day. In this case, the State charged the defendant with OWI and operating with a PAC, both as second offenses. The defendant moved for suppression of evidence on the grounds that the officer seized him without reasonable suspicion.
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.