by admin
on January 28, 2015
State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the officer. (¶¶5-7, 14).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 28, 2015
State v. Andre Bridges, 2013AP350-CR, district 2; 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
If any doubt remained, rest assured that if police have probable cause to believe there are drugs in your apartment, pound on your door, yell “Milwaukee police” and then hear sounds of movement, they may bust down your door and conduct a “protective sweep.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 27, 2015
Outagamie County v. Lori D., 2014AP1911, District 3, 1/27/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was sufficient evidence to commit Lori under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. because her behavior over one night showed a “pattern of recent acts or omissions” that evidenced impaired judgment and because the lack of services available in the community established a “substantial probability of physical impairment or injury” to Lori if she wasn’t committed.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 27, 2015
State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2013AP1615-CR, District 1, 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects Gonzalez-Villarreal’s challenge to his conviction for possessing child pornography based on claims that: his right to a speedy trial was violated; discovery restrictions violated his right to equal protection; other acts evidence was erroneously admitted; the trial court rejected his modified jury instruction on possession; the court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 22, 2015
State v. Richard Harrison, 2015 WI 5, 1/22/15, affirming a summary disposition of the court of appeals; opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity
The supreme court unanimously holds that a circuit judge erred by presiding over Harrison’s trial, sentencing, and postconviction motions after Harrison filed a timely and proper § 971.20 request for substitution of the judge, the request was granted, and a new judge was appointed. The court rejects the state’s claims that Harrison forfeited his right to substitution and that any error was harmless.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 22, 2015
State v. Robert J. Tisland, 2012AP1570-CR, District 4, 1/22/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Even if two legislative acts made inconsistent changes to a criminal statute and meant the changes made by the earlier act were superseded by the later one, a charge filed under the provisions of the superseded act was not, under the circumstances of this case, a charge for a crime unknown to law that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction or competency; instead, it was a technical charging error that didn’t prejudice the defendant.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 22, 2015
State v. Melisa Valadez, 2014AP678, 2014AP679, 2014AP680; District 2, 1/21/15, certification granted 3/16/15; circuit court reversed 1/29/16; case activity
Issue presented (from certification):
How definite or imminent must deportation be in order for it to be “likely,” such that a defendant may withdraw a guilty or no contest plea on the basis that he or she was not informed of the immigration consequences at the plea colloquy? If, in order to withdraw the plea, the defendant must show that deportation proceedings are underway, how does this standard fit in with the time limits for a motion to withdraw the plea?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 22, 2015
County of Calumet v. Lisa L. Dolajeck, 2014AP2100, District 2, 1/21/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals here affirms a decision denying a motion to dismiss OWI charges and a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. It holds that the sheriff in this case had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, and nothing requires law enforcement officers to record a stop even if they have video cameras in their squad cars.
[continue reading…]
{ }