On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Jerred Renard Washington / Jerred Renard Washington v. State, 2012 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); case activity (974.06); case activity (writ)

Habeas (Knight Petition) – Laches 

Following his plea-based conviction in 1997, Washington’s retained counsel filed a postconviction 809.30 motion in 1998. Counsel did not file a notice of appeal, however, after the motion was denied. Then, in 2009,

on review of petition for supervisory writ; for SPD: Joseph N. Ehmann, Kathleen A. Pakes; case activity

Postconviction Reference to PSI 

Issue (Composed by On Point): 

Whether, before litigating a presentence report-related sentencing issue, postconviction counsel must obtain circuit court permission to “access, discuss, cite to, and quote from a PSI report.”

Fall-out from State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132,

State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions 

Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”

State v. Alexander Velazquez-Perez, 2010AP001128-CR, District 1/4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Velazquez-Perez: David Leeper; case activity

The court of appeals has authority to extend the deadline for filing a postconviction motion; Velazquez-Perez filed his motion within the deadline as extended by the court of appeals, and jurisdiction attached over appeal of the subsequent denial:

¶19      We conclude we have jurisdiction over the plea withdrawal court’s May 2,

State v. Susan M. Thorstad, 2011AP2854-CR, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Thorstad: Charles W. Giesen; case activity

Mistrial was granted after the arresting officer, in contravention of pretrial order, testified that this was Thorstad’s second OWI. However, the officer was unaware of the order, because the prosecutor had failed to advise of same, an omission the trial court attributed to “laxness on the part of the State.” The trial court then ruled that,

State v. Laurence W. Tucker, 2012 WI App 67 (recommended for publication); for Tucker: Robert T. Ruth; case activity

Tucker pleaded guilty pursuant to plea bargain, which terms included continuation of his release on bond and compliance with same. After Tucker failed to appear at sentencing, necessitating his arrest on a bench warrant and issuance of a new charge of bail jumping, the State informed counsel it was no longer bound by the agreement,

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.

¶13  Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.  

Karen Baker v. Department of Health Services, 2012 WI App 72 (recommended for publication); case activity

Service, by Mail – Generally 

¶3 n. 2:

… In the absence of a statutory provision, the rule in Wisconsin is that service of notice by mail is not effective until the party receives it.  Hotel Hay Corp. v. Milner Hotels, 255 Wis.

State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity

Mootness Doctrine – Generally 

¶8 n. 2:

The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.  An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Aaron B.: Jeremy C. Perri, Hannah Blair Schieber, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Guardianship – Placement Hearing – Personal Appearance 

Failure to object to ward’s inability to appear at guardianship placement hearing waived argument that court should not have held hearing in ward’s absence.

¶7        Wisconsin Stat. § 55.10(2) provides that a ward must attend a protective placement hearing unless “after a personal interview,