11/20/2023 0 Comments Wisconsin foodie cameraman dan peters♦ The State charged Peters with one count of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration over 0.02 and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, each as a seventh or subsequent offense. An analysis of his blood showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.082. He was transported to a hospital for a blood draw pursuant to a warrant. ♥ The officer arrested Peters for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and requested that Peters submit to a blood draw for chemical testing of his blood. The officer requested that Peters submit to a PBT, and Peters declined. ♤ Peters submitted to a series of field sobriety tests that showed additional signs of impairment. As Peters was sitting in the squad car, the officer noticed a strong odor of intoxicants coming from Peters. 2021AP1940-CR limit and that he had several prior intoxicated driving offenses on his record. In running Peters’ information, the officer discovered that Peters was subject to a 0.02 blood alcohol 2 No. He ran Peters’ information and asked Peters questions about his driving status. ♣ The officer asked Peters to step out of his vehicle and directed Peters to sit in the passenger seat of the officer’s squad car. The officer noticed that Peters’ speech seemed a bit slurred or “lethargic.” Peters attempted to locate his driver’s license by repeatedly digging through his wallet, but he did not produce a license. The officer approached Peters’ vehicle and began speaking with Peters. The officer initiated the stop after determining that Peters was speeding, and that his vehicle had an excessively loud muffler. Background ♢ The circumstances of Peters’ traffic stop were established through testimony by the deputy sheriff who conducted the stop. We conclude that Peters has not shown that counsel’s stipulation or inadvertent playing of the video resulted in prejudice. Peters also argues that counsel was ineffective by stipulating to the admission of evidence that Peters refused to submit to a blood draw and by inadvertently playing video at trial that showed Peters refusing to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT). We conclude that Peters has not shown that counsel performed deficiently by failing to file a suppression motion. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a suppression motion challenging the expansion and extension of his traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving. Peters also appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Daniel Peters appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration as a seventh or subsequent offense. Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. Before Blanchard, P.J., Fitzpatrick, and Graham, JJ. APPEAL from judgment and an order of the circuit court for Crawford County: LYNN M. 2019CF42 2021AP1940-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED ApSheila T.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |