On Point

State v. Ryan Stefan Roberts, 2010AP2899, District 4, 6/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberts: Bruce J. Rosen, Susan C. Blesener; case activity

Request for preliminary breath test supported by probable cause, despite somewhat inconclusive field test results, in view of strong odor of alcohol emitted by Roberts along with his admission of drinking. County of Jefferson v. Renz,

State v. Lisa K. Beckman, 2010AP2564-CR, District 2, 6/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beckman: Gary Grass; case activity

¶12      Here, Schubel observed Beckman’s vehicle at 11:40 p.m. on a Sunday night in a parking lot behind one closed business before it proceeded to the parking lot of another closed business.  There were no lights on at either location.  Schubel considered this activity in light of his knowledge that there had been reports of burglaries of small businesses in the area. 

State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2010AP1530, District 2, 6/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Tiggs knew that DNA test results would be released in mere hours, yet chose to enter his no-contest plea. His postconviction motion to withdraw the plea, based on a theory that the test results amount to newly discovered evidence, fails to satisfy the requirements that the evidence was discovered after conviction and that the defendant wasn’t negligent in seeking the evidence. 

State v. Charles Lamar, 2011 WI 50, affirming 2009 WI App 133; for Lamar: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04

Two concurrent sentences were initially imposed following guilty pleas to aggravated battery and misdemeanor bail jumping, both as repeater. The Agg Batt plea was withdrawn on postconviction motion, but the bail jumping wasn’t challenged.

court of appeals publication orders, 6/29/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 78 State v. Marilee Devries

2011 WI App 79 State v. Andre D. Hansbrough

2011 WI App 80 State v. Yancy D. Freland

2011 WI App 81 State v. Eliseo Peralta

2011 WI App 86 State v.

State v. Deandre A. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, affirming unpublished CIA decision; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Frisk – Auto

Frisk of Buchanan, following routine traffic stop for speeding, was supported by reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous.

¶3   We hold that under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trooper’s observation of Buchanan’s furtive movements and visible nervousness,

Docket

Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550)

Question Presented (by the Court):

Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.

Hmm. Didn’t the Court just get done resolving this issue?

State v. James Thomas Morton, 2010AP2041-CR, District 1, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Morton: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Evidence that Morton told an undercover officer to put her money on the kitchen table, and that “what you came for is right here,” supported conviction for delivery of the controlled substance the officer found on the table.

¶13      “[A] constructive transfer need not be hand to hand.  

State v. Felton O. Shands, 2010AP2407-CR, District 1, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shands: Randall E. Paulson; case activity

High-crime area (what else?) + hand-rolled cigarette “furtively” (what else?) thrown down by occupant of parked car on police approach + bit of embellishment = reasonable suspicion the occupant is armed and dangerous (what else?).

¶23      We conclude, based upon the totality of the circuit court’s findings of fact,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thompson: Gregg H. Novack; case activity

Traffic Stop – Ordering Driver Out of Car

¶6        Thompson contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the officer did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights by ordering Thompson to get out of his car following the traffic stop.  This is how Thompson puts it in his brief:  “Mr. Thompson specifically argues that the Milwaukee Police Department had no legal right to order him from his vehicle.”  It is settled,