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. Tramell E. Starks, 2010AP425, WSC review granted 8/1/12
on review of unpublished decision; case activity
§ 974.06 Motion – Serial Litigation Bar
Issue (composed by on Point)
Whether, following unsuccessful direct appeal, a motion raising a “non-constitutional” issue (propriety of DNA surcharge) operates as a “serial litigation” bar such that a subsequent § 974.06 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred.
Starks was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide sentenced to 55 years: 36 years’
Homicide of Unborn Child by Intoxicated Use of Motor Vehicle, §§ 939.75(2)(b)3, 940.09(1)(c): No Violation Equal Protection; Sentencing: Accurate Information – Can’t Show Impact
State v. Mark M. Benson, 2012 WI App 101 (recommended for publication); case activity
Equal Protection – Homicide of Unborn Child by Intoxicated Use of Motor Vehicle, §§ 939.75(2)(b)3, 940.09(1)(c)
Section § 939.75(2)(b)3 exempts from criminal liability any “act by a woman who is pregnant with an unborn child that results in the death of or great bodily harm, substantial bodily harm or bodily harm to that unborn child.”
Restitution: Insurance-Related, Difference between Appraised Value and Salvage-Auction Price
State v. Cody A. Gibson, 2012 WI App 103 (recommended for publication); case activity
Restitution order to reimburse insurance company and owner for insurance deductible, in relation to losses arising from stolen auto, upheld. The company (Acuity) paid the owners $11,113 the same day the car was stolen, but the car was recovered with very little damage the very next day. The car was appraised at $10,379 and Acuity turned it over to a salvage company,
Search & Seizure: Consent to Blood Draw – Test for Seizure of Person; Ineffective Assistance: Unobjected-to Evidence of Victim’s Character – No Prejduice
State v. Jason M. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104 (recommended for publication); case activity
Search & Seizure – Consent – Blood Draw
Following a fatal traffic accident, Jacobs performed field sobriety tests well enough that he wasn’t placed under arrest, but he was asked to submit to a blood draw. Jacobs called his attorney, who advised him not to consent to the draw, but Jacobs nonetheless agreed to go to the hospital with an officer to have a blood test.
Self-Representation: Klessig Waiver
State v. Dragisa Pavlovic, 2011AP2687-CR, District 2, 8/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Pavlic’s waiver of counsel so that he could represent himself at trial satisfied State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997).
¶8 As a precautionary measure, the trial court granted Pavlovic a Klessig evidentiary hearing. We conclude the trial court’s waiver colloquy complied with Klessig.
OWI – 1-Difluoroethane (DFE)
State v. Marilyn M. Torbeck, 2012AP522-CR, District 2, 8/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶6 … For the State to charge Torbeck with OWI under § 346.63(1)(a), DFE must be either an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog, or a drug. DFE is not listed as a controlled substance under either Wisconsin or federal law. A “controlled substance analog” is defined as “a substance the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance.” Wis.
Reasonable Suspicion – Drunk Driving
State v. Paul H. Olson, 2011AP1728-CR, District 4, 7/26/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶11 Although Officer Welker did not observe Olson commit any traffic violations, the other facts known to Officer Welker at the time he initiated questioning demonstrate that he had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop. The incident took place at 11:30 p.m. “The hour of the day may … be relevant in that the individual’s activities may or may not be consistent with the typical behavior of law-abiding citizens at that time.” State v.
Appellate Briefs
State v. Jeremiah R. Connour, 2011AP1489-CR, District 3, 7/31/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
¶3 n. 2:
Connour’s thirty-eight-page statement of the case includes primarily verbatim Q & A trial testimony, but nonetheless omits relevant evidence necessary to address his postconviction claims. Most of the remainder of Connour’s recitation of the “facts” inappropriately consists of several pages of argument.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 7/12
court of appeals publication orders, 7/27/12
On Point posts from this list:
2012 WI App 74 Jerred Renard Washington v. State of Wisconsin / State v. Jerred Renard Washington
2012 WI App 76 State v. Willie H. Jackson
2012 WI App 77 State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier
2012 WI App 79 State v. Wayne P. Harris
2012 WI App 82 State v.
Supreme Court Justice Recusal – Material Witness
Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 103 (Justice Ziegler); case activity; companion decisions: 2012 WI 69, 2012 WI 43
Justice Ziegler, like Justice Roggensack and unlike Justice Crooks, recuses herself from a pending judicial complaint against Justice Prosser.
¶2 The highly unusual issue each justice is called upon to decide is whether he or she,
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.