State v. Samuel K. Dixon, 2015AP2307-CR. 10/6/16; District 1 (per curiam; uncitable); case activity (including briefs)
You may not cite this per curiam opinion as precedent in any Wisconsin court, but happily you can bask in Dixon’s victory. The court of appeals wisely held that his 5-minute, friendly conversation with a “thicker black female” at 6:00 a.m. on 29th and Lisbon in Milwaukee did not constitute reasonable suspicion of prostitution-related activity. [continue reading…]
State v. Brandon E. Jordan, 2015AP2062-CR, 10/6/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jordan violated the terms of his Deferred Prosecution Agreement and received a warning letter which resulted in a 6-month extension of the agreement with new conditions. He then violated the conditions of the extension, and was terminated from the Deferred Prosecution Program. He argued that his termination violated the terms of the DPA. [continue reading…]
State v. David L. Tarlo, 2016 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)
When’s the last time you saw a defense win on a restitution issue? This child porn case addresses the vexing problem of circuit courts awarding restitution though the victim failed to prove that her losses were “a result of a crime considered at sentencing” as required by Wis. Stat. §973.20(14)(a). [continue reading…]
State v. D.C.M., 2016AP1205-FT, 10/5/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The stay of a dispositional order in a juvenile case cannot be lifted unless the parties and the court follow the notice and hearing requirements of §938.34(16). They failed to do so in this case, so the court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s order lifting the stay on D.C.M.’s sex offender registration. [continue reading…]
State v. Jordan Branovan, 2016AP622-CR, 10/5/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Here’s a sure fire way for law enforcement to comply with Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015): summon a K-9 officer before initiating a traffic stop in order to minimize the extension of it. That’s what Officer Heinen did here once he saw that Branovan was not wearing a seat belt but was wearing a hat with what looked like a multicolored pot leaf on it. Four and half minutes later, the K-9 officer arrived on the scene, conducted a sniff, which led to the discovery of THC and drug paraphernalia. [continue reading…]
State v. A.S.W./State v. J.P.W., 2015AP2119 & 2015AP2120, District 2, 10/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Douglas Yanko was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Postconviction, he sought access to the juvenile court records of the child’s brothers, A.S.W. and J.P.W., who were also charged with sexually assaulting the child. Yanko asserts there may be exculpatory evidence in the records—in particular, evidence the child is untruthful or otherwise incredible—because the delinquency petitions were amended to charge misdemeanor battery and A.S.W. and J.P.W. were given in-home placement. (¶¶2-4). The court of appeals rejects all Yanko’s arguments for getting access to the records. [continue reading…]
State v. Ali Garba, 2015AP1243-CR, District 2, 10/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Garba wanted to present testimony from two expert witnesses about possible reliability problems with the gas chromatography tests of his blood, but the circuit court wouldn’t let him. The court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and rejects Garba’s claim the ruling violated his right to present a defense. [continue reading…]
State v. Matthew Allen Lilek, 2014AP784-CR, 10/4/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Lilek’s trial counsel raised his competency to stand trial and the court-appointed expert found him incompetent and unlikely to become so. The state, dissatisfied with that result, requested another evaluation, and the court obliged. This new evaluation reached the opposite conclusion, and Lilek was eventually found competent. Is this OK? [continue reading…]
