On Point

State v. Anthony D. Guard, 2012 WI App 8 (recommended for publication); for Guard: Richard L. Zaffiro; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Duplex, Common Hallway

Guard, a resident of a duplex upper flat, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hallway by which his unit was accessed, such that warrantless police entry into that hallway without consent or exigent circumstances violated the fourth amendment; factors enunciated by State v.

State v. Lisa L. Payne, 2010AP1995-CR, District 3, 12/20/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Payne: Eric R. Pangburn; case activity

The court, in imposing a sentence to prison confinement term of 13 months, expressly took into effect the possibility that Payne’s medical needs would not “be addressed adequately in a county jail.” Upon postconviction challenge to the sentence, “however, the court clarified that the length of Payne’s sentence was not dependent upon the care that she would receive in either jail or prison,”

State v. Douglas J. Richer, 2011AP1197-CR, District 3, 12/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Richer: Matthew F. Anich, Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Richer wasn’t in custody (to a degree associated with formal arrest) so as to require Miranda warnings:

¶15      Here, Richer’s argument focuses only on the time period before Mathison placed him under arrest for operating while intoxicated. He lists several factors he contends show he was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.  

From the academy:

• Deirdre D. Brown, “One Strike and You’re Out: Padilla Advisement About Public Housing Eligibility” (“Attorneys must begin to recognize that there already exist an ethical and moral duty to advise clients of the collateral consequence of the loss of public housing eligibility and that this duty to advise meets the Sixth Amendment requirement for effective assistance to counsel.”)
• David S.

State v. Charles A. Clayton-Jones, 2010AP2239-CR, District 4, 12/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clayton-Jones: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity

 Clayton-Jones resolved a 2006 charge (involving sexual assault of a boy) with a plea bargain, in which the state was to recommend 12 years initial confinement. Before sentencing, he allegedly violated bond conditions, and the state sought to be relieved of its bargained-for allocution limit.

on review of summary opinion; for Miller: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Terry Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

Issue (composed by On Point): 

Whether information obtained from a jail inmate and other, anonymous sources established reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.

Neither the court of appeals summary order nor Miller’s petition for review is available on-line. The briefs filed in the court of appeals indicate that Miller’s car was stopped after the police received information that he was transporting drugs.

on review of unpublished decision; for Frey: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sentencing Discretion – Reliance on Dismissed Charge

Issue (composed by On Point): 

Whether sentencing discretion was erroneously exercised by undue reliance on, including unfounded inferences drawn from, a charge dismissed “outright.”

Frey was charged with sexually assaulting two girls. Both testified at the preliminary hearing. Frey ended up pleading no contest to assaulting one,

court of appeals publication orders, 12/14/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 156 State v. Forrest Andre Saunders

2011 WI App 157 State v. Jamie L. Salonen

2011 WI App 163 Melissa M. Hines v. Daniel K. Resnick, M.D.

2011 WI App 164 State v. Michael T. Ziller

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206

Evidence – Prior Inconsistent Statements 

Evidence of complainant KAC’s statements made during an alleged sexual assault were admissible as prior inconsistent statements,

on certification by-pass of court of appeals; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity; prior post

Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2) 

Issue (from Certification): 

In State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, we analyzed Wis. Stat. § 948.31(2), which deals with criminal charges for interference with custody of children.  There,