On Point blog, page 6 of 6
Exasperated, District 3 penalizes all parties to appeal
Loren H. Laufman v. North Central Power Co., Inc., 2012AP2116, District 3 (per curiam; not eligible for publication or citation).
Normally, On Point would not trouble its readers with a per curiam decision involving insurance coverage issues. This one, however, penalizes parties for violations of Wisconsin’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, so appellate lawyers of all stripes should pay attention. Skipping over the substantive insurance issues,
Waiver of right to testify
State v. Leshurn Hunt, 2010AP2516, District 4, 5/16/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Issue: Was defendant’s decision not to testify at trial knowing, intelligent and voluntary on the grounds that; (a) the court conducted a defective colloquy; (b) the defendant was coerced to waive his right to testify; and (c) the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel?
Holding: Hunt’s waiver was fine. The legal test is set forth in State v.
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to object to or present evidence. Sentencing — exercise of discretion
State v. Danny F. Anton, 2012AP1165-CR, District 2, 4/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Ineffective assistance of counsel
In a fact-specific discussion that precludes summary here, the court of appeals holds Anton’s trial attorney was not ineffective for: failing to object to testimony about telephone calls between Anton and a detective, as the evidence was not prejudicial (¶¶10-13);
Traffic stop – reasonable suspicion to conduct stop based on anonymous tip
State v. Bryant A. Preinfalk, 2012AP2060-CR, District 4, 3/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The stop of Preinfalk’s car was lawful because in light of observations made by the officer, the anonymous tip provided reasonable suspicion to conclude the car was occupied by persons who had been involved in a fight at the Sidelines Bar:
¶11 It is not disputed that the tip in this case was anonymous.
Evidence sufficent to show parent/child go-kart ride amounts to physical abuse of child; ditto as to parent’s decision to treat injuries at home rather than seek medical attention
State v. Nicholas M. Gimino, 2012AP1498-CR, District II/IV, 3/7/13 (unpublished); case activity.
While this decision is not recommended for publication, it highlights a very touchy subject–when does conduct many parents engage in rise to the level of physical abuse of a child? The answer may surprise you.
Here’s what happened. Gimino took his 2-year-old daughter for a ride on a motorized go-kart having no sides or roof.
Appellate Briefs
State v. Jeremiah R. Connour, 2011AP1489-CR, District 3, 7/31/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
¶3 n. 2:
Connour’s thirty-eight-page statement of the case includes primarily verbatim Q & A trial testimony, but nonetheless omits relevant evidence necessary to address his postconviction claims. Most of the remainder of Connour’s recitation of the “facts” inappropriately consists of several pages of argument.
Waiver of Argument: Failure to Develop Argument on Appeal
State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski
Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Citing Relevant Authority
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.
Holding:
¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.