Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Principles of

State v. A.A., 2018AP1497, District 4, 2/27/20 (recommended for publication); case activity Wisconsin Stat. § 938.355(6)(d)1. sets a maximum length of “not more than 10 days” for a custody sanction that a circuit court may impose on a juvenile who has violated a dispositional order. Is that 10 calendar days? Or, as the state argues, does… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Matthew Hinkle, 2019 WI 96, 11/12/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017AP1416, case activity (including briefs) We’ve posted on this case twice before, first on the published court of appeals decision and then on the supreme court’s grant of the petition for review. The question is easily posed: the statute says… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs) So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn. Shoeder drove his riding mower on the paved shoulder of a city street, and was stopped and arrested for OWI in violation of § 346.63 after police… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Rehaif v. United States, USSC No. 17-9560, 2019 WL 2552487, June 21, 2019, reversing 888 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2018); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Federal law bans certain classes of people from possessing guns, and provides stiff penalties (up to ten years in prison if there are no enhancers) if they… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67, petition for review granted 4/9/19; affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs) Hinkle, a 16-year-old boy, was charged as a juvenile in two different counties for a car theft and police chase.  In Milwaukee County, the juvenile court waived him into adult court. So, did the Fond du Lac court have… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs) Applying its newly minted decision in State v. Stewart, 2018 WI App 41, the court of appeals holds that the “representing” element of identity theft under § 943.201 can be proven with the same evidence that proves the defendant “used” the identifying… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michel L. Wortman, 2017 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs) A glitch in the OWI penalty statute appears to suggest that OWI 7th and greater offenses don’t allow for a fine, but only for the imposition of the forfeiture provided for first-offense OWI. The court of appeals concludes otherwise. The court also rejects Wortman’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2017 WI 74, 7/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs) A few years ago the legislature set out to create a graduated penalty scheme for operating after revocation offenses, but it bungled the job and ended up creating misdemeanor and felony penalties for the offense… Read More

{ 0 comments }