Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Jesse U. Felbab, 2017AP12-CR, 8/2/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again. That’s surely the State’s take away from this decision. Deputy Schoonover stopped Felbab for erratic driving and determined that field sobriety tests and a drug-detecting dog were in order, so he called for a back up.  This led to the State charging Felbab with possession of THC. He moved to suppress.  Before giving its decision, the court told the parties that it would be willing to grant a motion to reopen if the losing party wanted to enter more evidence into the record. Hint. Hint. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Anthony Alvarado, 2016AP142, 7/26/17, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In this recommended-for-publication opinion, the court of appeals tackles an issue of first impression in Wisconsin. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Samuel Silverstein, 2016AP464-CR, 8/1/17, District 1 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Pursuant to a warrant, police searched Silverstein’s computer for child porn. The “informer” was Tumblr, which is required by federal law to report suspected child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Silverstein challenged the warrant as well as the mandatory minimum sentence the trial court imposed per §939.617, which he contends is unconstitutionally vague. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

SCOTUS has announced that its new filing system will go live on November 13th. The Court will make all filings–including cert petitions filed in forma pauperis (like ours)–available on line for free.  Click here for more details and the SCOTUS press release.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

7th Circuit win for Brendan Dassey vacated

In case you have not heard, the 7th Circuit has vacated the split decision upholding the order for a new trial in Dassey’s case. The court will rehear the case en banc on September 26th. Think oral argument before ALL the judges!!!! Order here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Travail L. Lewis, 2017AP234-CR, 7/25/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After shots were fired in a high crime area of Milwaukee, police dispatched Officer Robert Crawley (no relation to the 7th Earl of Grantham) to investigate. He and his partner saw Lewis (African American) walking down an alley holding the waistband of his pants. They told him to stop and hold up his hands. Then they drew their guns. Lewis told them that he had a gun but no permit, so they arrested him. The State charged him with misdemeanor carrying a concealed weapon. Lewis  filed an unsuccessful suppression motion. On appeal, the State wisely conceded that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Lewis based on State v. Gordon, 2014 WI App 44, 353 Wis. 2d 468, 846 N.W.2d 483. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Janaya L. Moss, 2016AP1856-CR, 7/25/17 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Moss and another woman had a fight in a bar; responding police found Moss intoxicated to the point of incoherence. They arrested the other woman and frisked her, but could not find any identification (she would give only a first name). One officer noticed a wallet on a nearby table and asked the other woman if it was hers; she did not respond. The officer opened the wallet, revealing Moss’s ID but also cocaine and marijuana. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. K.H., 2016AP1180, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During a lengthy colloquy regarding her “no contest” plea to grounds for terminating parental rights to her son, K.H. “seemed confused.” She said she hadn’t taken all of her prescribed medication. The court was concerned that she “was not able to fully understand the proceedings.” So her lawyer conducted a direct examination to determine her understanding of what she was doing. Eventually, the court was satisfied that she did and found that her plea was freely, voluntarily and intelligently given. Then it proceeded to establish a factual basis for it. On appeal, K.H. contends that (1) her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and (2) the court erred in accepting the plea before the factual basis for it was proven as required by §48.422(7). Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }