On Point

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

State v. Tijuan L. Walker, 2010AP2587-CR, District 1, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Walker: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

Walker was tried for and convicted of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, § 940.25(1)(a), after his car collided with DeAnn Braggs’. A form accompanying the post-accident test kit containing Braggs’ blood (which had little or no alcohol content) noted that the vials of blood were labeled “Walker,

Dawn H. v. Pah-Nasa B., 2011AP1198, District 3, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Pah-Nasa B.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Given the proof of lack of parental responsibility as a ground for terminating Pah-Nasa’s rights, counsel’s failure to object to testimony about a fight between Pah-Nasa and his mother wasn’t prejudicial.

¶14      We conclude Pah-Nasa has failed to prove prejudice,

Question Presented (composed by Scotusblog): 

Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles that this Court established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, apply to the imposition of criminal fines.

Scotusblog page

Petitioner, a natural gas company, was found guilty by jury of one count of knowingly storing mercury without a permit, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A). The jury wasn’t called upon to find such storage for more than one day,

Question Presented (composed by Scotusblog): 

Whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies in an initial sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date if the offense occurred before that date.

Hill: Scotusblog page; consolidated with Dorsey (lower court decision: United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011))

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,

Questions Presented (from Scotusblog): 

1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court’s precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel’s statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all?

2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr.

Melissa M. Hines v. Daniel K. Resnick, M.D., 2011 WI App 163 (recommended for publication); case activity

The requirement in  § 893.82(5)  that a notice of claim against a state employee must be “served upon the attorney general at his or her office in the capitol by certified mail” is satisfied “by certified mail addressed to the attorney general at his or her capitol office, Main Street office,

State v. Gustavo E. Lopez, 2011AP1037-CR, District 2, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lopez: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

¶8        While the record reveals that Lopez is correct in stating that the court took video evidence from the roadside stop into consideration when making the finding of probable cause, we disagree that this was in any way not allowed. When determining the facts available to the officer to formulate probable cause,

State v. Herbert L. Hamilton, 2011AP1325-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hamilton: Dixie Lippit; case activity

Although driver in single-car accident didn’t exhibit signs commonly associated with intoxication, the smell of alcohol on his breath coupled with his loss of control of the car provided probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test under § 343.303:

¶15      First,

State v. Jeffrey Steinhorst, 2011AP1360-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity

Steinhorst made a prima facie showing that he did not validly waive counsel in a prior OWI case; therefore, he is entitled to a hearing at which the State must prove proper waiver, by clear and convincing evidence, else the prior conviction may not be used to enhance his current case.