On Point blog, page 14 of 24
Sanctions
City of Shawano v. Darlene F. Sense, 2010AP2193-FT, District 3, 2/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply
¶10 As a final matter, we address certain deficiencies in Sense’s appellate brief. First, Sense’s repeated references to “appellant” and “respondent” throughout her brief violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(i), which requires reference to the parties by name,
Sanctions – Appellate Procedure
Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.
We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d). Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous.
Ineffective Assistance: Inconsistent Defenses – “McMorris” Evidence – Prejudice; Appellate Procedure: Candor – Briefs, Record References
State v. Dekoria Marks, 2010 WI App 172 (recommended for publication); for Marks: Joel A. Mogren; Marks BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Ineffective Assistance – Inconsistent Defenses
Counsel’s choice to pursue potentially inconsistent defenses (self-defense; no involvement) was, in light of the “not uncommon practice of lawyers to argue inconsistent theories,” within the wide range of professionally competence assistance.
¶15 First,
Appellate Procedure – Sanctions and Inadequate Argumentation
State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.
Appellate Procedure – Sanction
Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion. Yet, as required by rule,
State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2009AP2916-CR, District 1, 10/26/10, review granted 11/14/12
Voluntariness – Statements to Probation Officer
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Sahs: Mark S. Rosen; BiC; Resp.
Sahs’ claim that his statements to his probation officer were given under compulsion is rejected, because the premise for the claim – a DOC form cautioning that he must reveal his activities else face probation revocation –
Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance; Record on Appeal; Self-Defense
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR, District 1, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery
Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,
Battery – Self-Defense – Sufficiency of Evidence; Sanctions – Improper Briefing
State v. Richard Martin Kubat, 2010AP509-CR, District 3, 9/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kubat: Marc Grant Kurzman; BiC; Resp.
Battery – Self-Defense – Sufficiency of Evidence
A verbal confrontation between truckers at a truck stop eventuated in Belcher disabling Kubat’s truck and inviting Kubat to get his punk ass out of his cab “and get it.” Kubat accepted the invitation and brought his tire knocker along as his own guest.
Evidence – Daubert; Discovery – Witness Notes; Briefs – Argumentation and SCRs; Closing Argument – Failure to Object; Ineffective Assistance – Failure to Investigate; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Christopher D. Jones, 2010 WI App 133; for Jones: Amelia L. Bizzaro; for Amicus, Innocence Network: Jerome F. Buting; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus Br.
Evidence – Daubert – Bullet Traced to Particular Gun
The court rejects “a blanket rule barring as a matter of course all testimony purporting to tie cartridge cases and bullets to a particular gun”:
¶22 Unlike in the federal system,
State v. Chad W. Voeller, No. 2009AP001596-CR, District II, 7/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Sanction – Appendix
Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.
Search-Incident: Automobile; Sufficiency of Evidence: Manufacturing THC
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Automobile
By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order:
¶9 Here,