On Point

State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held  sufficiently reliable to support stop:

¶12      We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case.  The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,

Search & Seizure

• State v. Fredricks, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1293 (11/3/10) (loud argument in motel room insufficient, without more, to justify warrantless entry into room under emergency aid doctrine)
• United States v. Gross, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21478 (6th Cir. 10/19/10) (discovery of valid arrest warrant didn’t dissipate taint of illegal stop: “We …

Wilson v. Corcoran, USSC No. 10-91, 11/8/10, vacating and remanding habeas grant in, Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 593 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2010)

Mere violation of state law doesn’t support habeas relief, violation of federal law being required.

But it is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts.

State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)

The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.

¶39      Therefore,

prior post: here; background summary by court: here

Issues (from Table of Cases):

Whether a pattern jury instruction confused or mislead a jury such that the instructions violated a defendant’s due process rights.

Whether a trial court erred in its handling of a jury’s questions during deliberations.

Whether particular evidence constituted substantial facts sufficient to corroborate the defendant’s alleged statements under the corroboration rule (See State v.

Prior post: here; background summary by court: here

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether, at resentencing, a defendant would be entitled to credit on a new sentence for time spent confined on a vacated sentence, which was served concurrently with another non-vacated sentence, when the new sentence is imposed consecutively to all other sentences (See Wis. Stat. § 973.04).

State v. Robert J. Ruggles, 2010AP1587, District 2, 11/3/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ruggles: Robert C. Raymond; BiC; Resp.

A driver doesn’t have a constitutional right to be informed that a blood draw could be performed without his consent.

¶9        It is well established that there is no constitutional right to refuse a request for a chemical test.  

State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2009AP2288, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Brief

¶14     Escalona-Naranjo requires that a defendant raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion or in the defendant’s direct appeal.  See id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185.  A defendant may not pursue claims in a subsequent appeal that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or direct appeal unless the defendant provides a “‘sufficient reason’” for not raising the claims previously. 

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence

The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.

The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;

State v. Patrick E. Hampton, 2010 WI App 169 (recommended for publication); for Hampton: Michael S. Holzman; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Custodial Interrogation – Request for Counsel

To invoke the 5th amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation, the suspect must assert the right unambiguously, something Hampton did not do.

¶30      Hampton alleges that detectives ignored him and continued to inappropriately question him five minutes into the July 20 interview,