On Point

State v. Christopher J. Anderson, 2009AP3053-CR, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR

Anderson’s prior appeal established that “the trial court erred when it denied his request for an in camera review of [police] personnel files because he had both a constitutional and statutory right to any exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the files,”

State v. Dawn M. Fletcher, 2011AP1356-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fletcher: Earl J. Luaders, III; case activity

The court upholds search of a car following a drug dog alert which occurred while an officer was still processing a warning ticket for a conceded traffic violation:

¶7        On appeal, Fletcher concedes the initial stop was lawful.  She argues the dog sniff was illegal because the officer had no reasonable suspicion to detain the occupants of the vehicle to request a dog sniff.  

State v. Corrine J., 2011AP1916 / State v. Dalvin C., Sr., 2011AP1882, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Corrine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Dalvin C.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to object to the guardian ad litem’s closing argument wasn’t prejudicial, given the strength of the case for terminating parental rights. (The argument, merits of which the court doesn’t reach,

State v. Daniel M. Buesgens, No. 2011AP2241-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Buesgens: Eric John Nelson; case activity

Buesgens, told he was “absolutely free to go” after a concededly proper traffic stop, wasn’t then “reseized” when the officer asked questions related to whether he had been drinking.

¶15      Similar to Williams, a reasonable person in Buesgens’ position would have felt free to decline Mork’s questions and terminate the encounter.  

State v. Laura M., 2011AP2828, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Laura M.: Russell D. Bohach; case activity

The trial court properly exercised discretion in finding Laura M. in default when she failed to appear for trial on TPR grounds. A father of one of her children, Padrein K., called counsel to report that he had been stabbed and that Laura M.

Question Presented (from Cert Petition): 

Whether the Florida Supreme Court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the established Fourth Amendment precedent of this Court by holding that an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle?

Docket

Florida supreme court decision (71 So.3d 756)

Scotusblog page

The Dog Whisperer might want to get its own Supreme Court correspondent.

State v. Scott P. Wojcik, 2011AP2568-CR, District 2, 3/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wojcik: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller; case activity

90-day jail sentence for OWI-2nd (minimum 0f 5 days, maximum of 6 months) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. Trial court considered as aggravators recentness of prior OWI conviction (2008) and his seeming level of impairment (stumbled on getting out of car); and stressed deterrent purpose of sentence.

State v. Traci L. Scott, 2011AP2115-CR, District 2, 3/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The court rejects Scott’s challenge to a prior OWI conviction, concluding that she aware of the range of punishments, dangers of self-representation, etc. General test recited:

¶2        A defendant facing an enhanced sentence based on a prior conviction may only collaterally attack that prior conviction based on the denial of the constitutional right to counsel.  

Lafler v. Anthony Cooper, USSC No. 10-209, 3/21/12, vacating and remanding, 376 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010); prior post; companion case: Missouri v. Frye, 10-444

Cooper turned down a favorable plea bargain and instead went to trial, after his attorney erroneously told him the prosecution would be unable to establish intent to kill because the victim had been shot below the waist.

United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding, 311 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010); prior post; companion case: Lafler v. Cooper, 10-209

Counsel – Effective Assistance – Plea Bargaining 

Counsel’s failure to communicate to Frye a favorable plea bargain offer from the prosecutor was deficient performance under 6th amendment analysis of effective assistance of counsel.