by admin
on February 22, 2017
State v. Robert Mario Wheeler, 2016AP55-CR, 2/21/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Robert Wheeler was tried for reckless injury and being a felon in possession of a gun arising out of a single shooting incident. To keep the jury from hearing about his status as a felon, the parties stipulated that he was and agreed that the gun possession charge would be decided by the court. Wheeler’s counsel specifically noted the possibility that the two counts could be decided differently, given the different factfinders. (¶5).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 21, 2017
Question presented:
Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 17, 2017
Waukesha County v. Kimberly A. Ridl, 2016AP554, 2/15/17, District 2 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects an OWI defendant’s claim that the circuit court could did not have sufficient evidence of her impairment because the judge (it was a bench trial) was unqualified to conclude that her “medication caused her to be affected by alcohol in an atypical way.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 16, 2017
Village of DeForest v. Alexei Strelchenko, 2016AP1814, 2/16/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Just how did Strelchenko misuse his drone? Unfortunately, we do not know. He proceeded pro se and neglected to include a copy of the trial transcript in the appellate record. It is the appellant’s job to ensure that the record is sufficient for the court of appeals to review the issues. If he fails this task, the court of appeals assumes that the missing parts of the record support the circuit court’s decision. See State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt, 129 Wis. 2d 411, 425, 385 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1986). That’s what the court of appeals did here, and that is why Strelchenko lost.
Update: An On Point reader says if you want more information on how Strelchenko used the drone and what happened at trial, click here.
{ }
by admin
on February 16, 2017
Dane County D.H.S. v. J.B., 2016AP2422, District 4, 2/16/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
To terminate parental rights based on the “continuing CHIPS” ground, the jury had find that there was a substantial likelihood that JB would not meet the conditions for the safe return of her child within 9 months of the hearing. §48.415(2)(a). The circuit court admitted a social worker’s expert testimony on this issue, apparently without following §907.02 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals. The court of appeals assumed error but declared it harmless. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 16, 2017
State v. Dane C. McKeel, 2016AP884-CR, District 4, 2/16/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“Due to the extremely cold, windy, icy, and snowy conditions” police moved McKeel approximately 8 miles from where he was stopped to a local police department so that McKeel had the “best opportunity” to complete field sobriety tests. (¶¶4-5). Moving McKeel this far did not transform the stop into an arrest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
City of New Berlin v. Bryon R. Hrin, 2016AP239, District 2, 2/15/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying a mistrial after the arresting officer’s testified that, having completed the field sobriety tests, he “administered a preliminary breath test, PBT.” (¶4). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
State v. Charles J. Hartleben, 2016AP1066-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A defendant is denied due process at sentencing where the author of his PSI is married to the DA who prosecuted him. State v. Suchocki. Ditto where a counselor who assessed the defendant for his PSI also treated his victim. State v. Stafford. In these situations, bias on the part of the PSI writer or counselor is implied as a matter of law. But here the court of appeals found no “implied bias” where the author of Hartleben’s PSI worked with probation agents who were Hartleben’s victims in an earlier case. [continue reading…]
{ }
