On Point

State v. L.M., 2021AP970, District 1, 9/8/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying L.M.’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against her in this TPR case.

A new report (summarized here) from the Council on Criminal Justice digests some recent recidivism data is out, explaining, among other findings, that the return-to-prison rate has dropped, that rearrest rates remain high for people leaving prison, but that most of those rearrests are for public order offenses. Here‘s the whole thing.

Shawano County v. S.L.V., 2021AP223, District 3, 8/17/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court to make specific fact findings about dangerousness at a ch. 51 commitment hearing. The circuit court didn’t do that in this case, so the commitment order is reversed.

State v. Robert Daris Spencer, 2018AP942-CR, petition for review, and petition for cross review, of an unpublished court of appeals decision, both granted 8/13/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (composed by On Point from the PFR and cross PFR)

1.  Was the circuit court’s ex parte voir dire and removal of a juror during trial a structural error requiring automatic reversal, or is it subject to harmless error analysis?
2. Did the circuit court improperly consider the race of the defendant and the witnesses in deciding to dismiss juror?
3. Is a defendant entitled to a postconviction hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the record conclusively shows the claim should be denied?

Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2020AP704, certification granted June 16, 2021; case activity (including briefs) Issue (from Court of Appeals’ Certification): Are Evans v. DOJ, 2014 WI App 31, 353 Wis. 2d 289, 844 N.W.2d 403, and Leonard v. State, 2015 WI App 57, 364 Wis. 2d 491, 868 N.W.2d 186, “good law” in light […]

On August 25, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55 (rejecting challenges to conviction based on Confrontation Clause violation, corroboration of confession issue, and biased juror claim). State v. Avery B. Thomas, 2021 WI App 59 (defendant entitled to […]

State v. Joel R. Davis, 2021 WI App 65; case activity (including briefs)

A police officer stopped Davis’s car in the early evening. He initially said it was because Davis lacked a passenger-side mirror. But it turns out that’s not illegal. Wis. Stat. § 347.40. So the next day–and despite having failed to mention it to the other officers at the stop, which was video recorded–he “updated” his report to say that actually, he’d stopped Davis for a seatbelt violation. But the body-cam video shows that Davis’s seatbelt was fastened when the officer initially approached the car.

State v. John William Lane, 2021AP327, 8/19/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Lane departing a bar around 2:10 in the morning. He followed him in his squad car and eventually pulled him over, and eventually arrested him for OWI. The tailing and the stop were recorded on the squad car’s camera. The circuit court concluded the officer’s observations didn’t create reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the court of appeals now affirms.

Turns out ShotSpotter maybe ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, according to this article. (There’s a case pending in the state supreme court involving an investigatory stop based in part on a ShotSpotter alert; see here.) On the other hand, those small nifty cameras everywhere—on cell phones, doorbells, on police officers themselves—are putting paid […]

State v. Caleb James Watson, 2021AP355-CR, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Taking Watson to a local police station to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) wasn’t unreasonable and thus didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.