On Point

State v. Carl Mills, 2010AP1746-CR, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Mills: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Trail counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions and verdict forms with respect to unanimity on multiple counts of sexual assault of a single victim, even though the verdict forms did not specify the types of sexual intercourse involved; 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Linssen: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

Sentence Review – Harsh & Excessive 

Sentence to maximum term of confinement for felony theft and forgery wasn’t harsh and excessive, notwithstanding lack of prior criminal record.

¶23      Linssen has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing court relied on improper factors, see Harris,

State v. Andrew W. Rosenthal, 2011AP828-CR, District 3, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rosenthal: Erica L. Bauer; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car, at 2:30 a.m., in isolated area which was site of frequent break-ins; State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 47, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997), distinguished:

¶14      Here, conversely, we conclude that Rosenthal’s conduct does not describe the conduct of a large number of innocent persons.  

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

State v. Lakesha M., 2011AP1280, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lakesha M.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Termination of parental rights affirmed, court rejecting argument that procedural requirements of §§ 48.422(8) & 48.422(9)(a) (where petition not brought by agency, court “shall” order parent to provide certain information) violated:

¶5        The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did not file the petitions here.  

on review of published decision; for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt:  Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the State may bring a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition to judgment when the respondent is in the exclusive custody of the Department of Corrections,

on review of published decision; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Commitment – Alzheimer’s

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether Alzheimer’s is a qualifying mental condition so as to support commitment under ch. 51.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams:  Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Search Warrants – Issuance by Commissioner

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether § 757.69(1)(b) confers on court commissioner authority to issue search warrants, or whether Wis. Const. art. VII, § 2 reserves such power to judges.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2011 WI App 131 (recommended for publication); for Beamon: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; petition for review granted, 4/25/12

Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements 

¶4        ….  In State v. Sterzinger, 2002 WI App 171, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 925, 649 N.W.2d 677, this court separated the language of § 346.04(3) into segments:  (1) No operator of a vehicle,

State v. Devon L. Bean, 2011 WI App 129 (recommended for publication); for Bean: Scott D. Obernberger; case activity

Sew-up Confession 

The fourth interrogation of Bean within a 60-hour period following his arrest did not, under the particular facts, amount to an impermissible “sew-up” confession.

General principles. The question, in brief, is whether the time between arrest and formal charge was “inordinate.”