On Point

State v. Tabitha A. Sherry, 2004 WI App 207, PFR filed 11/19/04
For Sherry: Craig R. Day

Issue/Holding:

¶15. Sherry next argues that, regardless whether the officer legally stopped her car, the subsequent warrantless non-consent search of her car was illegal. An automobile may be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause to search the vehicle and the vehicle is readily mobile. 

State v. Jacob J. Faust, 2004 WI 99, reversing 2004 WI App 243, 267 Wis. 2d 783, 672 N.W.2d 97
For Faust: Stephen M. Seymour

Issue: “(W)hether, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, exigent circumstances exist for a nonconsensual warrantless blood draw after the police have obtained what the arresting officer believes to be a voluntary,

State v. James A. Schmidt, 2004 WI App 235
For Schmidt: Daniel S. Diehn

Issue: Whether § 343.305(5)(a) requires that the driver request an additional test after the police have administered the primary test and, if not, whether Schmidt’s pre-blood draw request for a breathalyzer was properly rejected.
Holding:

¶11. Although Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) and (5) use the term “alternative test,”

State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 74
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman

Issue/Holding:

¶11. The trial court held that there had been no violation of SCR 20:4.2 and that even if there had been, suppression would not be the remedy. We agree with the trial court that suppression is not available for an ethics violation.

Green v. Berge, 354 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 01-4080, 1/9/04)

Issue/Holding:

The Wisconsin law, § 165.76 et seq., was passed in 1993. In its original form, only prisoners convicted of certain offenses were required to give DNA samples for analysis. In 1999, the law was amended to require that all persons convicted of felonies in Wisconsin (and those who were in prison at the time) provide DNA samples for analysis and storage in the state’s data bank….

State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta

Issue/Holding: Any violation of § 175.40(6), which regulates the arrest power of an officer operating outside territorial jurisdiction would not support suppression as a remedy:

¶30. Assuming arguendo that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department had not adopted the written policies required by Wis. Stat. § 175.40(6)(d), we agree with the State that suppression is not a remedy for such a statutory transgression.

State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Evans: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: The petition for writ of habeas corpus procedure mandated by State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 522, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992) is the exclusive mechanism for seeking reinstatement of direct appeal deadlines lost on account of ineffective assistance of counsel;

Alan O. Moore, Sr. v. Mote, 368 F. 3d 754 (7th Cir. No. 03-3213, 5/17/04)

Issue/Holding: Dismissal with leave to refile following exhaustion of state court remedies doesn’t support a notice of appeal:

Generally, this court has jurisdiction only to review final judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s order dismissing the case without prejudice is not final because it explicitly contemplates the court’s continuing involvement in the case ….This court has held that there are “special circumstances” under which the dismissal of a case without prejudice may constitute a final appealable order.

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether, in moving to withdraw guilty plea on the basis of failure to inform the defendant that the trial court wasn’t bound by the plea agreement, the defendant need only assert lack of such understanding;

State v. Michael D. Lewis, 2004 WI App 211
For Lewis: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶10. The State does not dispute that it failed to bring Lewis’s case to trial within 120 days after the district attorney’s office received his request for prompt disposition of his case. …

¶11. The statute mandates that when the case is not brought to trial within 120 days,