Petition for review of State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, granted 1/18/2017; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the State’s petition for review):
Now that criminal defense attorneys are obligated to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of their pleas, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), should the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturn its decision in State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1, and reinstate the harmless error rule to prohibit a defendant who was aware of the potential immigration consequences of his plea from being able to withdraw the plea just because the circuit court failed to give a statutory immigration warning that complied with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c)? Read more
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the petition for review and petition for cross-review)
1. Whether the offense under § 343.44(2)(ar)4. can be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony in order to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language when the legislature’s intent was to create a penalty scheme with increasing penalties for additional elements; or whether, instead, the doctrine of implied repeal should be employed to correct the obvious drafting error that created the ambiguity as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.
2. Whether § 343.44(2)(ar)4., having been interpreted to give discretion to the prosecution to charge an offense as a misdemeanor or a felony, can be constitutionally applied.
3. Whether the provision in § 343.44(2)(b) stating that the circuit court “shall” consider certain sentencing factors is mandatory or directory.
Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the petition for review):
1. When a police officer performs a lawful traffic stop, is it reasonable for the officer to make contact with the driver to ask for the driver’s name and identification and to explain the basis for the stop, even if the reasonable suspicion supporting the stop has dispelled by the time the officer does so?
2. When an officer is unable to request a driver’s name and identification and explain the basis for a traffic stop because, as in this case, the driver indicates that the driver’s side window and door are both broken, is the officer then permitted to open the passenger’s side door to achieve that goal?
Review of a published court of appeals decision, 2016 WI App 64; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from petition for review):
Whether an officer’s justification to search is objectively reasonable where the suspect is not observed doing or saying anything suspicious, but cooperating in circumstances that the officer believes are suspicious?
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present additional evidence to show Floyd did not provide valid consent to the search?
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from petition for review):
Law enforcement officers arrested Kenneth Asboth at a private storage facility. The car he had been driving was parked in the lane between rows of storage units, in front Mr. Asboth’s leased unit. The officers seized the car, towed it to a police station, and searched it.
- Must a community-caretaker impoundment of a vehicle be governed by “standard criteria” limiting the discretion of law enforcement officers and, if so, was the impoundment here made in accord with such criteria?
- Was the impoundment here a valid community caretaker action where the vehicle was parked at a private storage facility? Relatedly, does the Constitution require the state to show that a community caretaker impoundment and search is not a pretext concealing criminal investigatory motives?
Review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (from the petition):
I. Whether the circuit court properly suppressed Mr. Blackman’s warrantless blood test because he was unconstitutionally coerced into taking the test when he was read the informing the accused form which incorrectly told him that he faced a revocation and other penalties if he refused chemical testing, when he was actually only facing a possible arrest?
II. Whether the circuit court below properly suppressed Mr. Blackman’s blood test where Mr. Blackman was unconstitutionally coerced into taking the blood test, under the totality of the circumstances, when he acquiesced to the unlawful assertion by the officer that they take blood samples in cases like his—in addition to being told that he faced a revocation and other penalties if he refused?
III. Whether section 343.305(3)(ar)2 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it coerces consent to otherwise unconstitutional searches without due process of law?
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point):
1. Whether a driver, who is a non-native speaker of English, consents to a blood draw where, in response to the officer’s question “will you consent” gives an unintelligible answer, then clearly asks “what kind of test?” and “don’t you need a warrant?” and where the driver does not otherwise “resist” or “fight” the blood draw?
2. Whether a driver’s acquiescence to a blood draw is voluntary when it occurs after he asks the officer “don’t you need a warrant?” and the officer shakes his head “no.”
Review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point)
(1) Could the defendant be convicted of two counts of hit and run with death resulting for a single act of leaving the scene of an accident that caused two deaths?
(2) Is the defendant’s sentence unduly harsh?