Past Client on Prominent Case
We hired Rex to work on a case that was moving like a 'turtle' with another lawyer. He did an excellent job. He always availed himself to us whenever we had questions. He explained every aspect of our case when we did not understand and throughly explained decisions and court proceedings to us as well. He keeps you in the loop and his billing practices I found to be pretty honest. I would not hesitate to ask him any questions regarding law... he is a man with oodles of integrity. Highly recommended!
When I first met Rex Anderegg I told him I was placing my trust on him. He replied, "I will not let you down and will do my best". Originally I had 3 criminal charges against me and the public prosecutor wanted to see me behind bars. Not only will I not go to jail, but he managed to clear my criminal record. The process was supposed to take over a year but was shortened to less than 6 months too. I am happy I got my normal life back and I am grateful for Mr. Anderegg's dedication and hard work.
This is the man you want defending you
Rex and I have known each other for probably 20 years as I have been part of his " Frequent Offender Club", No really! Rex goes out of his way and the proverbial extra mile for you. Criminal or family he will take good care of you. I knew of him through a friend that got divorced and he worked for a very prominent attorney at they time in the 90's whom I hired for a self defense case in 97. Good Man. He has accomplished some pretty amazing out-comes. I will be forever grateful Rex!
No matter how good a defense strategy may be, success still often depends on a knowledgeable judge willing to make a politically unpopular ruling. When a judge makes the wrong ruling, success then depends upon an ability to win an appeal. The law firm of Anderegg & Associates is renowned for its experience and success seeking post-conviction relief in both the trial courts and the appellate courts of Wisconsin.
Post-Conviction Relief in the Trial Court
Sarah, while represented by a public defender, pled guilty of being a party to the felony crimes of Robbery and Operating a Motor Vehicle Without Owner’s Consent. The charges stemmed from an incident where she drove a getaway car after her boyfriend unexpectedly robbed, shot and killed a man in a drug store parking lot. Unfortunately, Sarah was also on probation at the time for welfare fraud. Her probation was revoked and she was facing sentencing on those older charges as well. Sarah was sentenced to a total of 15 years prison on the new charges, but the sentencing court stated the prison sentence should be served concurrent to the sentence received following revocation of her probation. Thereafter, however, when Sarah was sentenced after her probation revocation for Welfare Fraud by another court to 14 years of prison, that court stated that Sarah would have to serve those 14 years consecutive to her 15-year sentence. Sarah was therefore left with a combined 29 years in prison.
Sarah was represented by an attorney at Anderegg & Associates who calculated that through a post-conviction motion to the trial court, he could compel the first court to make the sentences concurrent, as it had originally intended. The motion was successful and Sarah’s prison sentence was reduced from 29 years to 15 years. Because the sentence was an indeterminate sentence of which she had already served more than a year before retaining Anderegg & Associates to fix the problem, she was eligible for parole just 18 months after Anderegg & Associates work on her case was completed.
Relief in the Court of Appeals
Police dispatch received a night-time call from a convenience store clerk that an apparently intoxicated driver had left the store without his truck headlights illuminated. Police ran the pickup’s plate and traced it to Dennis’s apartment. A police officer knocked on Dennis’s door and obtained an admission from Dennis that he had been operating a motor vehicle after consuming intoxicating beverages. The officer also claimed to have noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and glassy eyes. Subsequent field sobriety tests and a blood test significantly in excess of the legal limit greatly strengthened the State’s case. Recognizing the Fourth Amendment implications of the case, the attorneys at Anderegg & Associates filed a suppression motion. At the suppression hearing, the attorneys were able to extract an admission from the officer that when Dennis opened his apartment door, the officer immediately stuck his foot across the threshold to prevent Dennis from closing the door. With intricate knowledge of the Fourth Amendment, specifically that even the slightest entry into a home without a warrant is unlawful unless police have probable cause and exigent circumstances, the attorneys at Anderegg & Associates capitalized on the admission and challenged the lawfulness of the entry. Nevertheless, the trial court denied Dennis’s motion.
Anderegg & Associates appealed the trial court’s decision to the court of appeals and prevailed. The appellate court remanded the case and told the trial court to suppress all of the evidence obtained after the officer stepped into the doorway. The OWI charges against Dennis were dismissed and the case established binding precedent in Wisconsin affirming citizens’ rights to be free from government intrusion into their homes.
Our primary goal at Anderegg & Associates is always to avoid a conviction. We do not hesitate to take any case to trial and our reputation in this regard serves us well during negotiations. Nevertheless, there are times when the facts and circumstances of a particular case dictate that our efforts are better focused on the sentencing phase of the case. Some of our best work has been in minimizing the impact of a conviction on our clients through effective and thorough representation at a sentencing hearing.
A Second Chance to Lead a Productive Life
Hank was a responsible seventeen-year-old doing well in school and working a part-time job when he was invited to join a group of friends who engaged in multiple sexual acts with a young girl. Although the sex acts were consensual, the girl was a runaway who, at just 13 years of age, was legally incapable of consenting to such activity. Consequently, Hank, along with the others, was charged with multiple counts of first degree sexual assault of a minor. Hank came to the law firm of Anderegg & Associates for help. Since Hank had already given highly inculpatory statements to the police following his arrest, the attorneys at Anderegg & Associates realized it might be in Hank’s best interests to use his quick acceptance of responsibility to his benefit rather than try to challenge those statements. Once it was determined Hank had properly been provided his Miranda rights prior to giving his statement, the die was cast. It was unlikely Hank could prevail at a trial where his confession would be used against him. The attorneys at Anderegg & Associates therefore set about the task of working out a plea agreement and working up a sentencing presentation that would minimize the impact of the charges on Hank. Great effort was made to highlight Hank’s positive attributes: no prior criminal record, good attendance and grades in school, a part-time job, solid family upbringing, genuine remorse, cooperation with police, etc. Using this information, the attorneys at Anderegg & Associates were able to secure a favorable plea recommendation from the district attorney. The attorney then had Hank privately evaluated by a psychologist to establish he did not fit the profile of a sexual predator. Armed with all of this information, the attorney convinced the judge to impose a sentence which did not require any incarceration and more importantly, which exempted Hank from having to register as a sex offender. Hank is now in college and quietly complying with some reasonable terms of probation which should be completed before his graduation. In the end, the judge agreed with Hank’s attorney that Hank should be given a second chance to lead a productive life. Hit and Run
Dale was charged with felony hit and run after a sudden lane change in his tractor-trailer rig caused another vehicle to flip over seriously injuring the vehicle’s occupants. Unfortunately, Dale did not stop following the accident, but instead, continued down the road several miles before he was stopped by police. Dale was subsequently charged with two felony counts of Reckless Driving – Causing Bodily Harm.
When Dale sought legal counsel, he was referred to Anderegg & Associates by a friend who had been successfully defended by that firm. The attorneys at Anderegg & Associates initially urged Dale to take his case to trial, firmly believing Dale when he stated that given the size of his rig, he had not even realized his rig had clipped another vehicle. Moreover, Dale’s sudden lane change had been prompted by a vehicle making a u-turn in an opening in the interstate median, a vehicle which Dale’s attorney determined was a county sheriff transporting a prisoner. Dale, however, having been fully informed of the pros and cons of going to trial and what such a proceeding would entail, advised his attorney he wanted to resolve the case without a trial. Accordingly, Dale’s attorney divulged the exculpatory facts comprising the defense strategy to the prosecutor throughout the course of negotiations thereby securing a favorable sentencing recommendation.
To prepare for the sentencing hearing, Dale’s attorney focused the firm’s resources on demonstrating how the accident was caused by the need for Dale to take an evasive maneuver. Counsel further explained how the minor impact with the other vehicle could have been masked by the violent braking of his own rig, especially when Dale was so distracted by his efforts to void striking the squad car. Thereafter, Dale’s attorney highlighted Dale’s acceptance of responsibility, the fact he had insurance to compensate the victims, his lack of a prior record and his advanced age and frail health. Ultimately, the felony charge was amended to a misdemeanor. The court sentenced Dale to probation, without any incarceration, and did not revoke Dale’s operating privileges.