2009AP413-CR State v. White

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Reasonable expectation of privacy

Nathan J. White, acting pro se, appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. White argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal entry into his home; that he is entitled to sentence modification because the court relied on inaccurate information when it sentenced him; his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the sentencing hearing to continue even though there were substantial unresolved questions of fact; and that he is entitled to sentence credit. We conclude that the circuit court properly decided that White did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his front porch; he has not established that the trial court relied on inaccurate information when it sentenced him; he did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and that his motion for sentence credit appears to have been decided after the notice of appeal was filed in this case and, therefore, is not properly part of this appeal. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP413-CR State v. White

Dist II, Kenosha County, Barry, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: White, Nathan J., pro se; For Respondent: Kassel, Jeffrey J., Madison; Zapf, Robert D., Kenosha

Full Text