On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon.

State v. Joseph Jordan, 2011AP1249, District 1, 6/25/13; case activity; (not recommended for publication).

What a challenging case.  A jury convicted Jordan of first-degree reckless homicide and other crimes.  He lost his direct appeal and then filed a pro se §974.06 motion requesting various forms of relief, including a new trial based on: (a) newly-discovered evidence, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel. He also filed several requests for counsel,

State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision;  case activity

Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities. 

State v. Keith M. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87; case activity

Substitution of judge; “new” judge under § 971.20(5)

When a case is reassigned from the original judge to a second judge and then reassigned again back to the first judge, the first judge is the “original” judge assigned to the case under § 971.20(4), not a “new” judge under § 971.20(5). Therefore, a motion to substitute the original judge had to be filed before the arraignment,

State v. Christina V., 2013AP405-FT, District 3, 6/11/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s order adjudicating Christina delinquent of disorderly conduct despite the judge’s comments that what happened in the case was “somewhat of a guess” and that his conclusions were “[m]y best guess” and based on what “I suspect” happened. (¶¶12-13).

Though the trial court found none of the witnesses “all that reliable”

Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83; case activity

David G.’s parental rights were terminated in a proceeding commenced by the child’s mother. He filed a timely notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief, but his appointed appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal before the deadline. (¶3). That deadline cannot be extended because the legislature has decreed that the time for filing an appeal in a TPR case may not be enlarged when the petition was filed by someone other than “a representative of the public.”

State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, on review of published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack

Beamon was tried for fleeing an officer under § 346.04(3), which requires proof that the person knowingly fled or attempted to elude an officer in one of three ways:  1) by willful or wanton disregard of a visible or audible signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the police officer or other vehicles or pedestrians; 

Polk County v. Norman S., 2012AP2801, District 3, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity.

Given the court of appeals’s highly deferential standard of review for jury verdicts, it doesn’t throw them out very often.  In this case, it did.   A jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Norman S. was unable to provide necessary care so as to seriously endanger the physical health of his son,

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.