On Point: C. Briefs/Appendices

State v. Michael S. Dengsavang, 2015AP637-CR, 6/1/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Michael Dengsavang raises several challenges to the trial court’s denial of his Machner motion. The court of appeals rejects one claim on the merits and declines to consider the rest, holding them previously abandoned.

State v. Gary F. Lemberger, 2015AP1452-CR, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/11/2016, affirmed, 2017 WI 39; case activity (including briefs)

A breathalyzer test is a Fourth Amendment search, and state case law holds that the state may not invite a jury to view a defendant’s refusal to consent to a search as evidence of guilt. So, can a prosecutor argue that a defendant’s refusal to take a breathalyzer shows his guilt? Don’t look to this case for an answer.

State v. Alina N. Caminiti, 2015AP122-CR, and State v. Matthew B. Caminiti, 2015AP123-CR, 4/6/2016, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The Caminitis were members of a church in Black Earth whose leader (Matthew’s father) advocated “rod discipline”–the beating of infants and young children on the bare buttocks with wooden spoons or dowels, often resulting in bruising. The father’s convictions for conspiracy to commit child abuse were affirmed by the court of appeals in 2014; the Caminitis now appeal their convictions at trial for physical abuse of their two children on substantive due process and religious freedom grounds.

Dennis A. Teague v. J. B. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20, petition for review granted 6/15/16, reversed, 2017 WI 56 ; case activity (including briefs)

Dennis A. Teague has no criminal record. But somebody who once used his name, and a date of birth similar to his, does. The ironic result is that Teague, a likely victim of identity theft, is now suggested to be a criminal by the Department of Justice’s criminal history database. Teague, understandably, objects, but the court of appeals concludes it has no power to fix the problem.

City of Milwaukee v. Jerry D. Butler, 2015AP1537, 1/26/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A pro se appellant’s failure to comply with briefing rules results in his appeal being dismissed as “defective.” (¶11).

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2015AP850-CR, District 4, 1/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Singh, appealing pro se, seeks to reverse a twelve-year-old OWI-second conviction for which his sentence is long over. 

State v. Susan P. Resch, 2015AP51-CR, District 4, 8/20/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

¶2     Resch fails to sufficiently develop any legal argument based on concrete references (much less based on proper citations) to pertinent portions of the record and the application of governing legal authority, and I reject her arguments on that basis. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals may decline to review inadequately developed issues). Any other approach would require me to abandon my neutral judicial role by becoming Resch’s advocate.

Attention appellate practitioners: We are pleased to present this guest post by Andrea Cornwall, Regional Attorney Manager if the SPD’s Milwaukee Appellate Office, about the imminent change in the rules governing references to victims in appellate brief.

Town of Bloomfield v. Petko Zvetkov Barashki, 2015AP226, District 2, 6/24/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case the court of appeals aptly describes as “unusual,” the court exercises its discretionary power of reversal under § 752.35 to throw out Barashki’s OWI 1st conviction and refusal finding on the grounds that the evidence doesn’t show the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Barashki.

State v. Frank D. Roseti, 2014AP2299-CR, District 2, 4/15/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an alleged discovery violation falls short because the defendant does not develop an argument as to why an objection would have prevailed.