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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
COA affirms TPR based on best interests of the child
State v. M.P.H.-R., 2021AP1628, 11/23/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
M.P.H.-R gave birth to A.S.H. in 2011 when she was just 14 years old. Since then both mother and daughter have suffered mental health problems. They lived together briefly twice over the intervening 10 years. Otherwise, for 7 years A.S.H. has lived with a foster family. The trial court terminated M.P.H.-R.’s parental rights based on §48.426(3)‘s “best interests of the child” factors. The court of appeals affirmed.
SCOW will review police “knock and talk” in fenced backyard
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the petition):
Did the police have implicit license to enter the backyard of Mr. Wilson’s home through a gated privacy fence?
SCOW will decide whether officer must orally swear truth of warrant affidavit
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2019AP2184-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/18/21 ; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the petition):
Whether the ‘Oath’ requirement under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution require a police officer to swear an oath to the truthfulness of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant to conduct an evidentiary blood draw in a criminal OWI matter?
Split opinion affirms restitution award double the value of victim’s property
State v. Alex Stone Scott, 2021 WI App 84; case activity
This split, recommended-for-publication opinion, merits further review. Scott drove M.S.’s truck without her permission and damaged it in the process. Undamaged, the truck’s Kelly Bluebook value was $2,394. M.S. testified that she did not want to repair the truck, but the circuit court nevertheless awarded restitution based on the cost of repair: $5,486.37. It also found that Scott, who was mentally ill and living on a minuscule SSDI benefit, was able to pay it. Judges Grogan and Neubauer affirmed. Reilly dissented.
Multiple charges for fleeing an officer weren’t multiplicitous
State v. Roman T. Wise, 2021 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)
Wise was convicted of 4 counts of fleeing or eluding an officer under §346.04(3). He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of 3 of his 4 charges on the grounds that they were multiplicitous. The court of appeals held that the charges were not multiplicitous because each one required proof of a different element or fact. Thus, the circuit court appropriately denied Wise’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a hearing.
COA holds emergency aid exception justified entry into garage where corpse was found
State v. Laverne Ware, Jr., 2021 WI App 83; case activity (including briefs)
When the parties filed their initial briefs in this appeal, it was a community-caretaker case. But during briefing, the Supreme Court decided Caniglia v. Strom, which made clear that this doctrine doesn’t permit searches in the home (in the process invalidating some Wisconsin cases). So now–as the Caniglia concurrences foretold–it’s instead a case about the “emergency aid exception.”
Defense win! COA holds imposed-and-stayed prison sentence begins on receipt at Dodge
State v. Joseph L. Slater, 2021 WI App 88; case activity (including briefs)
Slater had a prison sentence imposed and then stayed in favor of probation. While on probation, he was arrested on three new charges. The department of corrections revoked his probation pretty quickly, but he didn’t get sent to prison: instead, he remained in the county jail for over three years while those new charges were pending. After a jury convicted him on on the new charges, he got three new concurrent prison sentences. The court of appeals now holds that Slater should be credited on those new sentences for the years he spent in jail awaiting trial.
Federal court grants habeas relief for violation of right to counsel and right to go pro se
Nelson Garcia, Jr. v. Brian Foster, 20-CV-335 (E.D. Wis. 11/9/21).
Garcia challenged his robbery conviction on two grounds. (1) He was denied his right to counsel at a post-arrest police line up. (2) He was denied his right to go pro se at trial. While habeas wins are rare, what’s most remarkable is how blatantly the Wisconsin Court of Appeals violated SCOTUS precedent on both issues. To top that, SCOW granted review and then split 3-3 allowing the court of appeals decision to stand. Now, at long last, the Eastern District grants Garcia the relief SCOTUS requires.
COA splits over suggestive photo array and ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. Steven Tyrone Bratchett, 2020AP1347-Cr, 11/9/21, District 1, (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Bratchett of burglary, armed robbery, and attempted 3rd-degree sexual assault. Bratchett argued and lost 6 issues on appeal. The court of appeals split over two of them, and they are focus of this post. The majority (Judges White and Donald) held that: (1) the photo array the victim used to identify Bratchett, while impermissibly suggestive, was still reliable, and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the victim with her inconsistent statement. Judge Dugan would reverse on these issues and grant a new trial.
Defendant’s consent to a PBT was voluntary
State v. Terence S. O’Haire, 2021AP564, District 4, 11/4/21, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
O’Haire argued that an officer coerced his consent to a PBT , so its results and his refusal to submit to an evidentiary breath test should have been suppressed. The officer told O’Haire that he didn’t have to consent to a PBT, but then the officer threatened to take O’Haire to jail if he refused. When O’Haire hesitated, the officer ordered him to turn around and place his arms behind his back. The court of appeals held that the officer’s threat did not vitiate O’Haire’s consent.
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.