On Point

Langlade County Dept. of Social Services v. Rebecca D., 2010AP2497, District 3, 11/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rebecca D.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶19      On the facts adduced at trial, Rebecca clearly failed to assume parental responsibility for Anthony, pursuant to the standards set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). Anthony was nearly five months old when he was removed from Rebecca’s home.  

State v. Jamie L. Salonen, 2011 WI App 157 (recommended for publication); for Salonen: Robert J. Wells, Jr.; case activity

¶1        The trial court in this case granted Jamie L. Salonen’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after she asked to leave the scene of a roadside stop of a vehicle in which she was a passenger, which request was denied by police.  A passage in Arizona v.

City of Mequon v. Michael R. Wilt, 2011AP931, District 2, 11/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wilt: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Because the trial court in this bench trial did not rely on the breath test result in finding Wilt guilty of OWI, therefore his argument that the PBT result was inadmissible need not be reached, ¶¶16-17. As to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction absent the test result:

¶23      Proof of impairment was sufficient and established by clear,

State v. Alok Kumar, 2010AP2703-CR, District 1, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Kumar: Robin Shellow, Michael E. O’Rourke; case activity

Sentence to presumptive minimum (5 years confinement) for using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, § 948.075(lr), is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion, against Kumar’s arguments that the sentencing court: didn’t permit him to show sentences imposed by other circuit courts in presumptive-minimum cases;

State v. Michael D. Urben, 2011AP982, District 1, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Urben: Andrew Mishlove, Lauren Stuckert; case activity

Notwithstanding evidence that Urben suffered seizures before and after an automobile accident, his refusal to take BAC test wasn’t because of physical disability or disease unrelated to use of alcohol, controlled substances, etc., § 343.305(9)(a)5.c.

¶12      Under Wis.

State v. Gary F. Wieczorek, 2011AP1184-CR, District 3, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wieczorek: James R. Koby; case activity

Warrantless arrest of Wieczorek on his front porch for OWI, after he answered the officer’s knock was constitutional. The record doesn’t show that Wieczorek had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the porch. ¶¶10-11, distinguishing State v. Walker,

City of Sheboygan v. Benjamin B. Schultz, 2011AP904, District 2, 11/09/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schultz: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Stop of Schultz’s vehicle supported by community caretaker doctrine where, as Schultz drove past officer conducting an otherwise unrelated traffic stop, Schultz’s passenger door opened up and someone inside of Schultz’s vehicle yelled out.

¶7        While the community caretaker function is not like a typical search and seizure,

 Posting will be light to non-existent till approximately November 16. Some links in the meantime:

Michael O’Hear, “Supreme Court Review: Overarching Themes”

Richard D. Friedman, “Coping with the Melendez-Diaz line”

Washington supreme court: county noise ordinance unconstitutional (maj. op.; diss1; diss2)

Margaret Flynt, “The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon”

Samuel Morgan v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 10-3155, 11/7/11

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Recantation 

The Illinois state court didn’t mishandle either the facts or applicable law, and its rejection of State witness Prater’s post-trial recantation as incredible wasn’t unreasonable. The petitioner’s task is to “show[] that the state court determined an underlying factual issue against the clear and convincing weight of the evidence” – though the recantation here is consistent with the physical evidence,

Miller: SCOTUSblog page; consolidated with Jackson: SCOTUSblog page

Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):

Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Sound at least vaguely familiar? It should: our supreme court resolved that very question last Term,