Criminal Procedure; Miranda warnings

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 16, 2013//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure; Miranda warnings

Robert J. Rogers, pro se, appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon his no-contest plea, to one count of possessing with intent to deliver more than ten grams but not more than fifty grams of heroin, as a party to a crime. See WIS. STAT. §§ 961.41(1m)(d)3. and 939.05 (2011-12). He challenges the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop and his pre-Miranda and post-Miranda statements to the sheriff’s deputy.1 Rogers argues the merits of the trial court’s findings and conclusions, and he also asserts that the trial court did not give its full attention and consideration to the defense’s presentation and arguments. We reject Rogers’s arguments and affirm.

Affirmed.

This opinion will not be published.

2012AP2068 State v. Rogers

Dist. II, Sheboygan County, Van Akkeren, J., Per curiam.

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event