On Point: C. Briefs/Appendices

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,

State v. Leshurn Hunt, 2010AP2516, District 4, 5/16/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity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.

State v. Danny F. Anton, 2012AP1165-CR, District 2, 4/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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);

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.

State v. Nicholas M. Gimino, 2012AP1498-CR, District II/IV, 3/7/13 (unpublished); case activity.

While this decision is not recommended for publication, it highlights a very touchy subject–when does conduct many parents engage in rise to the level of physical abuse of a child?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.  

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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.  

Samex 1, LLC v. Bruce Buschman, 2011AP2634, District 1, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication)

¶2 n. 1:

If this appeal were not moot, our resolution of the appeal would have been difficult, if not impossible, because the transcript is not very helpful; there are more than two-dozen instances of “(Indiscernible)” or “(indiscernible)” in but a twenty-one page transcript.  Additionally, one of the sworn witnesses is merely identified as “A FEMALE.”  (Bolding omitted.)  The circuit court is responsible for the court reporter assigned to its court,

State v. Demian Hyden McDermott, 2012 WI App 14 (recommended for publication); for McDermott: Robert R. Henak, Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Sentencing Review – New Factor – Assistance to Law Enforcement 

McDermott, convicted in 1991 of first-degree intentional homicide, ptac with a parole eligibility date of 35 years, seeks new-factor-based modification of his PED on the ground “he helped law enforcement by participating in prison programs designed to dissuade youth from crime.”

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation 

Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.

Nielsen sanction after show cause (summary order, not citable), on remand from State v. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94

Sanction for Incomplete Brief Appendix 

The appellant’s brief argued that the circuit court failed to fulfill the mandate articulated in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, to explain the rationale for the particular sentence imposed.