On Point blog, page 2 of 4
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice; Newly Discovered Evidence; Counsel – Sanction
State v. Charles A. Bouc, 2010AP180, District 2, 12/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bouc: Adam Walsh; case activity; Bouc BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice
Counsel did not fall short of normative performance standards, where he weighed with his client the pros and cons of admissibility of potentially crucial evidence;
Appellate Procedure: Void Orders and Finality
Dustardy H. v. Bethany H., 2011 WI App 2; case activity
¶1 This case emphasizes once again the importance of finality in our justice system. In 2004, the circuit court erroneously granted Dustardy H. parental rights to Christian R. H., a child conceived via artificial insemination by Dustardy’s same-sex partner, Bethany H.[1] Four years later, after Dusty and Beth ended their relationship, Beth moved to void the parental rights order under WIS.
TPR – Partial Summary Judgment
Marathon County Dept. of Social Services v. Lorie O., 2010AP2351, District 3, 12/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
Summary judgment may be granted as to grounds for TPR, Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶6; but where the CHIPS order, on which alleged unfitness is premised, fails to set forth conditions for regaining contact with the child,
Search & Seizure: Consent to Enter – Expectation of Privacy (Overnight Guest) – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Miguel A. Ayala, 2011 WI App 6; for Ayala: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity; Ayala BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Consent to Enter
Based on trial court findings on disputed facts, the resident of an apartment gave the police consent to enter a bedroom and look for Ayala (as to whom,
Attorney-Client Relationship – Conflict of Interest
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Nikola P. Kostich, 2010 WI 136
Counsel publicly reprimanded for “a clear conflict of interest,” SCR 20:1.9(a): sexual assault victim had consulted counsel about suing his assailant, and counsel later represented assailant in criminal case involving number of victims including the one who had consulted him. The matters were “the same or … substantially related”; the interests of the subsequent client was “materially adverse”
Traffic Stop – Illumination Requirement
State v. George C. Greenwood, 2010AP1837-CR, District 4, 12/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Greenwood: Gerald C. Opgenorth; case activity; Greenwood BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Traffic stop properly based on violation of illuminaiton requirement in § 347.13(3) (rear plate must be illuminated by white light so as to be clearly legible from distance of 50 feet).
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 12/10
court of appeals publication orders, 12/14/10
On Point posts from this list:
2010 WI App 160 Jefferson County v. Joseph S.
2010 WI App 161 State v. Raymond Allen Nickel
2010 WI App 162 State v. Scottie L. Baldwin
2010 WI App 163 State v. William Dinkins, Sr.
2010 WI App 166 State v.
Rogelio Promotor v. Pollard, 7th Cir No. 09-2292, 12/14/10
7th circuit decision, habeas review of summary order of Wisconsin court of appeals, No. 2004AP2242-CR
Habeas – Procedural Bar, Sentencing Objection
Pomotor’s failure to object to information (the number of beers he allegedly consumed) in his alternative presentence report, worked a procedural default to his susbequent challenge to the sentencing court’s reliance on that information
Promotor accurately argues that a procedural defaultdoes not bar consideration of a federal claim unless the procedure is a “firmly established and regularly followed state practice.” Smith v.
Miranda – Custody; Lesser Included Offense Instruction
State v. Tony Lamont Jackson, 2010AP351-CR, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Hans P. Koesser; Jackson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Miranda – Custody
Initially treated at the scene of a shooting by the police as a witness rather than suspect, Jackson voluntarily accompanied the police to the station to continue providing information,