On Point

State v. Stephen R. Tollaksen, Jr., 2012AP778-CR, District 4, 1/10/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals affirms the denial of motion to suppress evidence of blood test results where circuit court found that Tollaksen had not requested an additional test to determine the presence of alcohol in his system. The record supported the circuit court’s acceptance of the officer’s testimony that Tollaksen did not request an additional test,

State v. Mitchell F. Graf, 2012AP1356-CR, District 3, 1/8/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Graf’s plea withdrawal claim, holding: 1)  Graf was not affirmatively misled to believe that by pleading to the offenses he would be able to keep his job because he understood that the circuit court was not bound by any plea agreement and could have sentenced him to imprisonment,

State v. Dennis D. Lemoine, 2013 WI 5, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Lemoine’s inculpatory statement to the police was voluntary:

¶3   We hold that the admission of Lemoine’s statements at trial was not error because, under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were voluntary. The well-established test for voluntariness balances the personal characteristics of the defendant against pressures imposed by law enforcement officers to determine if the pressures exceeded the defendant’s ability to resist.

Question presented

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendant’s guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced the defendant.

Lower court opinion (United States v. Davila, 664 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) )

Docket

Scotusblog page

This case appears to be of limited import to Wisconsin practitioners,

State v. Thomas G. Felski, 2012AP1115-CR, District 2, 1/3/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Felski was convicted of violating Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 110.05 (criminalized by virtue of § 100.20(2)) for failing to have a written contract covering some remodeling projects. Evidence at trial focused on construction of a garage, but Felski also worked on an addition to the house not covered by a written contract.

Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Nos. 12-1269 & 12-1788, 12/11/12

7th Circuit court of appeals decision

Illinois’s broad ban forbidding most persons to carry a gun that is loaded, immediately accessible, and uncased violates the Second Amendment:

We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home.

Appling v. Doyle, 2013 WI App 3, petition for review granted 6/12/13, sub. nom. Appling v. Walker; case activity

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law upheld against challenge it violates 2006 “marriage amendment” to the state constitution (art. XIII, § 13), declaring that the only marriage recognized in Wisconsin is one “between one man and one woman” and prohibiting same-sex couples entering into a “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.”

¶2        In 2009,

State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2012AP336-CR, District 1, 12/27/12;  court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/13; case activity

Order allowing police to track the current location of cell phone upheld, rejecting Tate’s argument that it constituted an illegal search warrant:

¶8        The heart of Tate’s argument on appeal is that the order authorizing the tracking of Tate’s phone to find its location was invalid under Wis.

State v. Jesse D. Fries, 2011AP517-CR, District 4, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Cost of installing new, upgraded security system in a convenience store after robbery was a “special damage” and therefore a proper item of restitution:

¶8        Fries’ primary contention is that an expenditure does not qualify as a special damage unless it was “spent to return the victim to the financial state he was in before the crime occurred.”  Here,

State v. Daniel Ryan Curry, 2012AP515-CR, District 1, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Newly discovered evidence

Defendant not entitled to new trial based on potentially exculpatory testimony of two witnesses, because the witnesses were known to him before trial. The two witnesses were the son and nephew of a defense witness named Rivera. Statements made by Curry and Rivera and contained in police reports,