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.
Reasonable Suspicion – Terry Stop
State v. Robert Wendt, 2010AP75-CR, District 1, 8/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.
Reasonable suspicion supported temporary stop of driver of truck idling at 1:30 a.m. behind business in winter with it snow plow up.
¶16 Here, there were “specific and articulable facts,” as set forth by Sergeant Paul during her testimony,
Sentencing – Factors
State v. William Webber, 2010AP9-CR, District 3, 8/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Webber: Chris A. Gramstrup; BiC; Resp.
On charges of 4th degree sexual assault and obstructing, the sentencing court properly considered, as both aggravating and mitigating, Webber’s 30-year history as a law enforcement officer, as well as his nonconsensual videotaping of his ex-wife.
Plea Withdrawal – Nelson/Bentley Motion
State v. Timothy Ray Anderson, 2009AP2416-CR, District 1, 8/17/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Jeremy C. Perri; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Anderson’s postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, on the ground he didn’t understand that a charge “dismissed outright” could nonetheless be considered at sentencing, was properly denied without hearing. The circuit expressly denied that the dismissed charge was factored into the sentence,
Joseph Price v. Pierce, 7th Cir No. 08-1401, 8/13/10
Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling
Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely.
The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different and should yield a different conclusion. First, the obvious: subject to highly exceptional circumstances,
Reasonable Suspicion – Guzy Factors
State v. Steve J. Will, 2010AP723-CR, District 4, 8/12/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Will: Mark Eisenberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable suspicion to stop Will’s truck is supported under the multi-factor test of State v. Guzy, 139 Wis. 2d 663, 407 N.W.2d 548 (1987): while authorities were monitoring a marijuana field an alarm was set off,
Traffic Stop – No Wisconsin DL; Duration of Stop
State v. James Casas Klausen, 2009AP2268, District 4, 8/12/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Klausen: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.
Traffic Stop – No Wisconsin DL
Wisconsin law “contemplates that a person with a valid out-of-state driver’s license who becomes a Wisconsin resident has sixty days, after becoming a Wisconsin resident, to apply for a Wisconsin license,” ¶6.
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation; Voluntariness – Police Promises
State v. Phillip K. Saeger, 2009AP2133-CR, District 2, 8/11/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Saeger: Michael J. Burr; BiC; Resp.
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation
Invocation of the right to silence during custodial interrogation must be clearly articulated, holding to that effect in State v. Ross, 203 Wis. 2d 66, 552 N.W.2d 428 (Ct.
State v. Brent S. Watling, 2009AP1727-CR, District 2, 8/11/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Watling: Margaret A. Maroney, Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sentencing – Exercise of Discretion – Sex Offender Registration
The sentencing court properly exercised discretion in requiring Watling to register as a sex offender on his conviction for 4th-degree sexual assault, ¶¶7-15.
Registration requirements are set out in § 301.45.
Plain Error
State v. Erik B. Hudson, 2010AP000780-CR, District 3, 8/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hudson: George S.Pappas, Jr.; BiC; Resp.
While “better practice” would have been to strike and give a curative instruction following a witness’s non-responsive testimony, the trial court’s failure to do so wasn’t plain error.
Reasonable Suspicion – Informant Reliability
State v. Glenn L. Earhart, 2010AP348-CR, District 3, 8/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earhart: Patrick J. Stangl; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable Suspicion – Informant Reliability
Authorities were under no obligation to check into a citizen-informant’s criminal record before acting on the information she related.
¶9 Earhart argues Kistner unreasonably relied on Hitchon’s report because she was a known criminal.
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.