On Point

State v. Richard L. Daniels, 2010AP1715-CR, District 3, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Daniels: John M. Carroll; case activity

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Voluntary Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication requires that the defendant establish utter lack of capability to form the requisite intent; because Daniels’ version couldn’t make this showing, counsel’s failure to pursue the defense wasn’t deficient performance.

¶12      It was reasonable for Daniels’ trial counsel to view Daniels’ version of events as inconsistent with a voluntary intoxication defense,

State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2011 WI 12, reversing unpublished decision; case activity; prior post; for Marinez: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Evidence – Other-Acts, § 904.04(2) – “Sullivan” Analysis

¶19  To guide courts in determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible for a proper purpose under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(a), we developed a three-prong test.  Sullivan,

Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree, 2011 WI 10, reversing 2009 WI App 103; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability

A circuit court order rejecting state indemnification of an employee being sued was non-final and thus absorbed in the final judgment later entered as to liability and damages.

¶62  An appeal may be taken as a matter of right only from a final judgment or a final order. 

district court decision, granting habeas relief on review of unpublished Wis COA opinion (2000AP-2460-CR); on remand from Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2008) 

for Toliver: Brian P. Mullins; Toliver BiC; Wis. Resp.; Reply

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance

Counsel performed deficiently in failing to call two potential witnesses who would have supported Toliver’s theory of defense that,

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”

court of appeals publication orders, 2/16/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 21 State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr.

2011 WI App 22 State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr.

2011 WI App 25 State v. Demetrius M. Boyd

2011 WI App 26 Heather B. v. Jennifer B.

Donna J. Murr v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, 2008AP2728, District 3, 2/15/11

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

¶18 n. 11:

The Board’s response brief repeatedly refers to Murr as plaintiff.  We remind counsel that references should be to names, not party designations.  See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(i).

Surpassingly minor point? Sure –

State v. Kenneth R. Parrish, 2010AP809, District 1, 2/15/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Parrish: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Parrish BiC; State Resp.; Reply

SVP – Petition for Discharge – Request for Independent Examiner

Parrish’s failure to unequivocally request appointment of an independent examiner dooms his argument on appeal that the trial court “prematurely dismissed his petition for discharge (§ 980.09) without first appointing an examiner,

State v. Janet A. Conner, 2011 WI 8, affirming 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Stephen E. Mays; case activity; Conner BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Stalking, § 940.32 – Notice of Charge, “Course of Conduct”

Stalking requires proof of, among other elements, a “course of conduct” which “means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time,

State v. Abigail W., 2010AP2792, District 1, 2/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Abigail W.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

TPR – Condition of Return

CHIPS condition that parent “show that you can care for and supervise your child properly and that you understand [her] special needs” wasn’t an impossible condition but, rather, was narrowly tailored to meet compelling State interest in protecting child’s safety,