On Point

State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir

TPR – Default as Sanction

Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,

State v. Jason C. Walker, 2010AP83-CR, District 3, 12/14/10

court of appeals decision; (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Walker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; prior opinion withdrawn 12/2/10, prior summary, here

On sentencing after revocation, the trial judge relied on sexual assault allegations appearing in the revocation summary;

decision below: summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski;  supreme court news release

Issues (from the news release):

1. Should the constitutional right of a criminal defendant not to testify on his behalf and remain silent at trial be recognized as a fundamental right that can only be waived personally by the defendant with an on the record colloquy?
2. Should the only appropriate remedy, for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to testify at trial,

Darnell Jackson v. Buchler, 2010 WI 135, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; for Jackson: Michael Halfenger, et al.; Jackson BiC; Buchler Resp.; Reply; Jackson Br. after remand; Buchler Br. after remand

Certiorari Review – Prison Discipline

Evidence before disciplinary committee, in the form of statements of two confidential informants,

State v. Lorraine J. / Johnny J., 2010AP137, et al,District 1, 12/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.:  Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau

TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation

A termination order severs all parental rights, including visitation under § 48.43, ¶¶31-37.

TPR – Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation

Grant of a post-disposition motion,

7th circuit decision; habeas review of State v. Martin, No. 06AP2413

Habeas – Filing Deadline – SVP

Martin’s habeas challenge to denial of his ch. 980 petition for discharge isn’t time-barred by the fact he could have raised the same challenge to his original commitment. Discharge typically requires a new determination of whether the SVP’s condition has “changed,” but Martin’s discharge litigation instead turned on an “exceptional”

State v. Mark A. Miller, 2010AP352-CR, District 4, 12/9/10 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Bill Ginsberg; Miller BiC; State Resp.

The court concludes that Miller voluntarily consented to police entreaties over an 11-minute period to enter his home so that they could perform field sobriety testing, notwithstanding his refusals during that time to allow entry:

¶7        The circuit court found that the officer spoke with Miller for approximately eleven minutes and,

Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P. S, 2010AP573, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Determination of the “best interests of the child” at TPR disposition includes consideration of various factors, including the “wishes of the child.” The TPR court need not hear directly from the child, but may instead take evidence of the child’s wishes from other sources.

Court discusses evidentiary issues that appear to be too inconsequential,

State v. Marlon M. Anderson, 2010AP742-CR, District 1/4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.

A defendant’s statement made voluntarily but in violation of Miranda isn’t admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but is admissible if the defendant testifies and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony. The question raised here relates to how such inconsistency is measured: whether outright contradictions are necessary,

State v. Brian R. Rogers, 2010AP1300-CR, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; State’s Resp. Br.

Even assuming Rogers violated no traffic law, his driving pattern provided reasonable suspicion for a stop:

¶10      Here too, the totality of the circumstances provided Lambrecht with reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop.  Lambrecht observed Rogers’ vehicle weave both within and outside its lane multiple times over the span of approximately one mile.