Weekly Case Digests February 14, 2022 - February 18, 2022.

• Author: Hawkins, Derek

Byline: Derek Hawkins

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Bobbie Jo Scholz v. United States of America, et al.,

Case No.: 20-2163

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Subject-matter Jurisdiction and Claim Splitting

Plaintiff-appellant Bobbie Jo Scholz suffered from serious physical and mental ailments following her service in the military. As a result, Scholz received extensive treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). After this challenging medical journey, she pointed to government negligence as the cause of the drastic decline in her mental and physical state. Seeking recourse, Scholz sued defendant-appellee United States twice under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C 1346(b), 26712680. Her first lawsuit predominately failed at the motion-for-summary-judgment stage. Her second lawsuit, now before us on appeal, sought to raise claims implicating the same, or essentially the same, facts as those claims from her first lawsuit. The district court therefore dismissed her duplicative lawsuit under the rule against claim splitting. Agreeing with the district court, we now affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

WI Court of Appeals Digests

WI Court of Appeals District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Lamondo D. Turrubiates

Case No.: 2020AP233

Officials: STARK, P.J.

Focus: 4th Amendment Violation

Lamondo Turrubiates appeals from an order that: (1) compelled him to disclose his cell phone passcode to law enforcement; and (2) found him in contempt and ordered him imprisoned as a remedial sanction after he refused to comply with the order to compel. Turrubiates argues that the order to compel violated his Fourth Amendment rights because at the time he was ordered to provide his cell phone passcode, police had not yet obtained a warrant to search his phone. Turrubiates also argues that the contempt order must be reversed because the circuit court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures for holding him in contempt and imposing a remedial sanction.

We reject Turrubiates' argument regarding the order to compel because the record shows that the State has now obtained a warrant to search his cell phone. As such, the factual basis for Turrubiates' only claim that the order to compel violated his Fourth Amendment rights no longer exists. Turrubiates' Fourth Amendment argument therefore fails, and we affirm that portion of the circuit court's order compelling Turrubiates to provide his passcode to police. We agree with Turrubiates, however, that the court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures for holding him in contempt and imposing a remedial sanction. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the court's order that held Turrubiates in contempt and ordered him imprisoned as a remedial sanction for his failure to provide the passcode.

Full Text

[divider]

WI Court of Appeals District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. David Charles Smith

Case No.: 2020AP584-CR

Officials: Brash, C.J., Dugan and White, JJ.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

David Charles Smith appeals the judgment of conviction for multiple counts of sexual assault of two children. Smith argues that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding allegations of one child's prior conduct, which the court determined was inadmissible under the rape shield law. Further, Smith contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove all elements of the assault of the second child. We reject his arguments, and accordingly, affirm the judgment.

Full Text

[divider]

WI Court of Appeals District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Emanual Santana

Case No.: 2020AP1214-CR

Officials: Brash, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Dugan, J.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Emanual Santana appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree sexual assault and an order denying his postconviction motion, without a hearing. On appeal, Santana argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring a proper motion to dismiss the criminal charges filed against him on the basis that the time period alleged in the criminal complaint was too broad and indefinite to allow Santana to prepare a defense. Santana also argues that the plain error doctrine requires that the charges against him be dismissed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm

Full Text

[divider]

WI Court of Appeals District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Antwan Devonta Green

Case No.: 2020AP1275-CR

Officials: Brash, C.J., Donald, P.J., and White, J.

Focus: Postconviction Relief Ineffective Instance of Counsel

Antwan Devonta Green appeals a judgment of conviction entered following a jury trial for felon in possession of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon, both as a party to a...