On Point: 1. Appeals

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12

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

Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:

¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,

State v. Mark A. Gierczak, 2012AP965-CR, District 4, 12/13/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

For purposes of obstructing an officer § 946.41, “officer” includes someone with authority “to take another into custody,” and therefore includes a correctional officer at a county jail, ¶¶11-12. The court of appeals thus rejects Gierczak’s challenge to the factual basis for his obstructing plea where as a county jail inmate,

State v. David J. Galarowicz, 2012AP933-CR, District 3, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

Galarowicz was not denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict on one count of disorderly conduct where the evidence showed an incident of disorderly conduct with the victim in the residence and additional conduct with the same victim in the residence after a twenty-minute pause. 

court of appeals certification request; certification granted 2/25/13; case activity (Seaton); case activity (Pinno)

Issue Presented (from Certification): 

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

As suggested, in each of these consolidated cases the trial judge barred the public from the courtroom (during jury selection in each instance),

La Crosse Co. DHS v. Kristle S., 2012AP2005, District 4, 11/21/12

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

The parent was given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the social worker with respect to conditions for the children’s return, in that the trial court permitted extensive questioning on these issues before instructing counsel to pursue a different line of questioning:

¶17      Our review of the record also demonstrates that Kristle had a meaningful opportunity to impeach Simmons’ credibility.

State v. Allen Dell Vaughn, 2012 WI App 129 (recommended for publication); case activity

Waiver / Forfeiture of Right, Generally 

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; forfeiture is:  (1) the failure to object to something without intending to relinquish that which an objection might have preserved and (2) doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right, ¶21, citing State v.

State v. Ouati K. Ali, 2011AP2169, District 4, 11/1/12

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

Postconviction Proceedings – Right to Counsel 

A defendant has no constitutional right to counsel outside the direct appeal period, therefore Ali’s argument that failure to appoint counsel counsel to pursue DNA testing deprived him of due process is a non-starter.

¶12      Ali does not claim that the public defender erroneously exercised its discretion in declining to appoint him counsel for the purpose of pursuing his motion for postconviction DNA testing.  

State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2011AP2698-CR, District 1, 10/10/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 4 (1/22/14); case activity

Waiver (Lack of Objection), Generally – Jury Instructions

¶8        … To obtain relief based on a jury instruction to which no objection was made, Jackson must show that “considering the proceedings as a whole,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

on review of published decision; case activity

Issue (composed by on Point) 

Whether sentencing reliance on inaccurate information (here, misapprehension of mandatory minimum incarceration) is structural error.

Travis pleaded guilty to an offense that all concerned (defense, prosecution, sentencing court) wrongly thought carried a 5-year mandatory minimum (largely due to confusion about the particular offense Travis pleaded to). The court of appeals clarified that the offense of conviction in fact had no mandatory minimum.