On May 29, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Michael J. Scott, 2019 WI App 22 (the exclusionary rule applies to property forfeiture actions; but so does the good-faith exception)
State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25 (OWI arrest automatically permits a search of the vehicle and all the containers within it)
Village of McFarland v. Dale R. Meyer, 2018AP2130, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Harsh! That’s best description for this court of appeals decision sanctioning Meyer for his pro se appeal of his first OWI. The decision runs afoul of Amek Bin- Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 335 N.W. 384 (1983) and Howell v. Denomie, 2005 WI 81, 282 Wis. 2d 130, 698 N.W.2d 62. Hopefully, a lawyer will take Meyer’s appeal, file a petition for review, and at least get the frivolous finding reversed. [continue reading…]
State v. Dale Andrejczak, 2019AP285, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including response brief only)
Talk about disparate treatment. In a considered, respectful ruling against a different pro se appellant, the court of appeals here affirms a conviction for obstructing an officer out of deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations. [continue reading…]
State v. Kelly W. Brown, 2018AP2382-CR, Distrct 4, 5/23/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Deputy Weinfurter stopped Brown because he thought that Brown’s car had 6 headlights illuminated on its front rather than the maximum of 4 allowed by §347.07(1). The stop led to an OWI 2nd charge. Brown moved to suppress arguing that the deputy’s assumptions about the number of headlights on his car were unreasonable. Indeed his car had only 4 headlights. [continue reading…]
Barron County DHHS v. S.R.T., 2018AP1574 & 1575, 5/22/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.R.T. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his twin sons. He argues the court erroneously entered default judgments on grounds when he didn’t show up for a hearing, that the proceedings violated his right to due process because they were fundamentally unfair, and that the court erred in refusing to vacate the default judgments. The court of appeals rejects all three claims. [continue reading…]
State v. T.J.B., 2018AP2449, 5/22/19, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.J.B. was charged as a juvenile with various drug and gun charges; he’d sold a little less than a pound of weed and was in possession of two handguns. (¶¶5-8). The State sought waiver into adult court. [continue reading…]
State ex rel. Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson, 2017AP880, review of an unpublished court of appeals order granted 5/14/19; case activity
Issue (from the petition for review):
Whether a criminal defendant who was denied a direct appeal and consequently was also deprived of counsel on appeal due to his trial counsel’s failure to file a notice of intent was properly denied habeas corpus relief based on the State’s assertion of a laches defense. [continue reading…]
Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, 5/21/2019, affirming an unpublished order dismissing appeal as moot; case activity
Practitioners know that it’s rare to get from final judgment to court of appeals decision on the merits in less than a year. Just the ordinary statutory time frames for appointment of counsel, transcripts, motions or notices, transmitting the record, and briefing schedules can easily eat up well over half that time. So, an extension of a ch. 51 commitment–which is statutorily limited to one year in length–will often, if not invariably, be over by the time a decision can be reached. The supreme court now decides that, in some cases at least, this makes appeals of those extensions moot. [continue reading…]
