Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Jesse J. Kain, 2018AP951, 10/17/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kain appeals his drunk driving conviction, arguing the officer that stopped him lacked the probable cause necessary to ask him to take a preliminary breath test. (See Cty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 316, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999).) Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Kole R. Eichinger, 2017AP1845-1847-CR, 10/16/18, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case highlights an expunction issue that SCOW still needs to resolve. Prior to 2014, circuit courts often delayed deciding expunction until they saw how a defendant did on probation. State v. Matasek, 2014 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 changed that practice.  It clarified that courts must decide whether to order expunction at the time of sentencing.  What about all of the defendants who were expressly told at sentencing that they could apply for expunction after they completed probation? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2017AP2006-CR, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from state’s petition for review)

Does asking a lawfully stopped motorist whether he is carrying any weapons, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, unlawfully extend a routine traffic stop?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2017AP1518, petition for review of unpublished opinion granted 10/9/18; case activity

Issue:

Was Randall entitled to suppression of the results of a test of a blood sample that she voluntarily gave to police under the implied consent law because she informed the lab that she was withdrawing her consent before the lab had analyzed the blood to determine the presence and quantity of drugs and alcohol?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Court of Appeals upholds TPR

Rock County DHS v. L.H., 2018AP1308, 10/11/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H. challenges the circuit court’s finding that the county department established continuing-CHIPS grounds for termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She says the county can’t have met its burden to show a “substantial likelihood” she wouldn’t meet the conditions of return within nine months, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (recently amended), because the court said “I don’t know” whether she’d meet the conditions. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State ex rel. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2018AP1214-W, petition for review of an Order Denying Supervisory Relief granted, 10/10/18; case activity

Issue: State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, ¶43, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141 held that “involuntary medication orders are subject to an automatic stay pending appeal.”  Which event triggers the automatic stay—the entry of the involuntary medication order or the filing of a notice of appeal? Either way, must the circuit court enter an “automatic stay” order?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Kenneth Alexander Burks, 2018AP208-CR, 9/25/18, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals held that an officer’s testimony that another witnesses’s testimony was “very believable” did not qualify as “vouching” when considered in context. It also held that the circuit court did not impermissibly rely on its own comments about the opioid epidemic, addiction, and the medical and pharmaceutical industries when it sentenced Burks. Thus, his lawyer was not ineffective when he failed to object to these alleged errors. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Sandra D. Solomon, 2018AP298-CR, 9/25/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Solomon sought plea withdrawal arguing that the circuit court had denied her request to represent herself and insisted on proceeding with the scheduled trial date, so her newly-retained lawyer was not prepared to defend her. The court of appeals held that her invocation of this right was not clear and unequivocal. It also held that the domestic abuse assessment clearly applied to this case. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }