On Point

State v. D.W., 2021AP1290, District 1, 9/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating D.W.’s parental rights because the court considered all the relevant factors under § 48.426(3) in reaching its decision.

State v. Kody R. Kohn, 2020AP2147-CR, District 2, 9/22/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kohn argues the circuit court erred in: 1) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the blood drawn from him after his arrest; 2) excluding exhibits he wanted to use to cross examine the state’s blood analyst; and 3) rejecting his motion to dismiss a bail jumping charge. The court of appeals affirms all the circuit court’s decisions.

Outagamie County v. D.G.M., 2020AP967, District 3, 9/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence at the final hearing on the petition to commit D.G.M. under ch. 51 was sufficient to establish all the statutory elements and D.G.M.’s incompetence to refuse medication.

State v. Manuel Garcia, 2021 WI 76, 9/24/21, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs) As explained in our post on the published decision, the court of appeals held that a defendant’s voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda can’t be used in the state’s case-in-chief, even for impeachment […]

State v. Richard Michael Arrington, 2019AP2065, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21, case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the state’s PFR; response here):

Did Arrington prove that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the CI’s recordings and testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds?

Did Arrington prove that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

State v. Valiant M. Green, 2019AP2150, petition for review of a summary order of the court of appeals granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the petition):

Did the affidavit in support of that search warrant fail to state probable cause to believe that Mr. Green had committed a crime and thus require suppression of the blood test result?

State v. Thomas M. Parkman, 2021AP27, 9/16/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In February 2020, a few weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic really got going in Wisconsin, the circuit court sentenced Parkman to six months in jail for three misdemeanors stemming from an incident in which he attacked his ex-girlfriend with pepper spray. He was given an April report date, but the circuit court sua sponte delayed that date in recognition of the dangers posed to jail inmates by COVID. It has been delayed ever since. This is an appeal of the circuit court’s denial of Parkman’s motion to modify his sentence to probation with an imposed-and-stayed jail sentence: that is, he was asking the court to permanently stay the jail (so long as his probation was not revoked).

Marquette County v. T.W., 2020AP1908, 9/16/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.W. was living in a group home in 2019 when, per testimony at his commitment trial, he punched, choked and threatened various people while refusing to take his medications. He was committed. On appeal he challenges the circuit court’s admission of some evidence. The county responds that his challenge is moot.

State v. Nicholas Reed Adell, 2021 WI App 72; case activity (including briefs)

Reversing a circuit court order suppressing evidence, the court of appeals holds the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Adell was driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) and that police could extend the traffic stop to have Adell perform field sobriety tests (FSTs).

State v. Todd DiMiceli, 2020AP1302-CR, District 4, 9/16/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Under § 968.375(6), a court-ordered subpoena for electronic communication records must be served within 5 days of issuance. The subpoena used to obtain internet records regarding DiMiceli from Charter Communications wasn’t served till 9 days after issuance. The records obtained led to further investigation and charges that DiMiceli was in possession of child pornography. (¶¶2-7). The delay in service of the subpoena doesn’t entitle DiMiceli to suppression of the evidence obtained with the subpoena because the violation of the 5-day service rule was a technical irregularity or error that did not affect DiMiceli’s substantial rights.