On Point: 1. Appeals

on review of summary order of court of appeals; for Mable K.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

TPR – Final Order – Appellate Standing 

Issues (from Petition for Review): 

I.        When a trial court grants partial relief on remand in a Termination of Parental Rights appeal, is further appeal precluded by the ordinary rules of civil procedure?

II.        Where the trial court determines that it denied the right to counsel during a TPR trial,

Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2012 WI 44; case activity

¶37 n. [11]:

In State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, this court recognized that the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver” are often used interchangeably, but that the terms embody distinct legal concepts.  Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,

Question Presented (from cert petition): 

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation. The question presented is whether Padilla applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement.

court of appeals decision; for Beamon: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Elements, Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Instructions – Sufficiency of Proof – Harmless Error 

Issues (from Beamon’s Petition for Review):

Is a jury instruction which describes the factual theory alleged to satisfy an element legally erroneous?

In a criminal case, are the instructions given the jury the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence must be measured or,

Patrick Wood v. Milyard, USSC No. 10-9995, 4/24/12, reversing 403 Fed. Appx. 335 (10th Cir 2010)

This case concerns the authority of a federal court to raise, on its own motion, a statute of limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition. After state prisoner Patrick Wood filed a federal habeas corpus petition, the State twice informed the U. S. District Court that it “[would] not challenge,

State v. David D. Austin, 2011AP1042, District 1, 4/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Because Austin was no longer in custody under the conviction he sought to collaterally attack pursuant to § 974.06, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his motion. It is not enough that he was in custody under some sentence, rather than the particular conviction he sought to attack:

¶12      Austin submits that the wording of Wis.

State v. Levi Alexander Rodebaugh, 2011AP2659-CR, District 4, 4/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rodebaugh: Bryon J. Walker; case activity

Grant of mistrial was unsupported by “manifest necessity,” hence was an erroneous exercise of discretion, where the complainant failed to show for trial and couldn’t be quickly located. Retrial is therefore barred as a matter of double jeopardy:

¶9        After Rodebaugh’s jury was sworn and jeopardy attached,

Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity

¶3   If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …

…

¶26  We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.

State v. Christopher J. Anderson, 2009AP3053-CR, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR

Anderson’s prior appeal established that “the trial court erred when it denied his request for an in camera review of [police] personnel files because he had both a constitutional and statutory right to any exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the files,”

court of appeals certification; for Taylor: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issue (from Certification): 

Whether understating the potential penalty during a plea colloquy can properly be deemed harmless error, and if so, where in the analytical framework of Bangert such a determination should be made.

The guilty plea court misinformed Taylor that the maximum he faced was 6,