On Point: 1. Appeals

7th circuit decision, imposing discipline 

Sanctions – Abandonment of Client 

It is apparent from this final motion for additional time that Boyle-Saxton elected to put work for other clients ahead of her obligations to Rodriguez and this court. That is unprofessional; lawyers have an ethical obligation to take no more work than they can perform. …

…

She is unfit to practice law in this court.

Heather T. C. v. Donald M. H., 2010AP467, District 2, 2/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Failure to object at trial waived appellate challenge to jury instructions and verdict form that combined two separate periods of abandonment as grounds for termination.

 ¶6        Failure to object to proposed jury instructions or verdicts at the instruction and verdict conference constitutes waiver of any error in the instructions or verdicts.  

State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2012 WI 5, reversing 2010 WI App 175; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

The trial judge’s daughter-in-law was part of the jury pool; Sellhausen didn’t seek her removal for cause, but used a peremptory to strike her, which rendered harmless any possible error in the trial judge sua sponte failing to remove the juror for cause.

State v. Reynold C. Moore, 2010AP377, District 3/4, 1/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moore: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; prior history: 1997AP1193-CR, habeas relief denied, Moore v. Casperson, 345 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2003)

Moore seeks relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence in the form of a purported recantation of State witness James Gilliam’s trial testimony.

on review of unpublished opinion; for Lemoine: Donna L. Hintze, Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Involuntary Statement – Coercion 

Issue (composed by On Point): 

Whether Lemoine’s in-custody statement was involuntary given the following police tactics:

• promising that in exchange for the “true story” he would not go to jail that night;
• telling him that he would not be able to contact an attorney while at the jail;

State v. Brian K. Little, 2011AP1740-CR, District 4, 1/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Little: Lane Fitzgerald; case activity

The court rejects  challenges to § 941.23, carrying concealed weapon, as facially violating the state and federal constitutional right to bear arms. (The statute presently allows concealed carry under specified circumstances, 2011 WI Act 35. Little was convicted under the prior version,

State v. James Lee Johnson, 2012 WI App 21 (recommended for publication); for Johnson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The guilty plea colloquy was defective, in that it failed to advise Johnson that the trial court wasn’t obliged to follow the terms of the plea bargain (here: to dismiss and read-in a count), contrary to State v. Hampton,

State v. Joseph J. Wilcenski, 2013 WI App 21; case activity

Conditions of pre-trial release – alcohol treatment and testing; constitutionality

Waukesha County has adopted a policy that all persons arrested for OWI as a second or subsequent offense who live in one of ten counties be released from custody on the condition that they participate in a “pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program.” Wilcenski argues that this condition violates the constitutional rights to medical privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.

State v. Leon A. Wedde, 2011AP130-CR, District 2, 1/11/12

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

The trial court dismissed with prejudice the pending charge when the prosecutor was unable to proceed on the scheduled date. The State argues that dismissal should have been without prejudice, and the court of appeals agrees that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion on this point,

State v. Cortez Ramon Brooks, I, 2010AP2454-CR, District 1, 1/10/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Brooks: Ann T. Bowe; case activity

The trial court immediately struck non-responsive testimony of a jailhouse informant that Brooks had admitted to “multiple homicides.” Denial of a subsequent motion for mistrial based on this testimony is upheld as an appropriate exercise of discretion.

¶18      First, any prejudice from Burks’s answer was cured by the trial court immediately striking the answer upon Brooks’s motion.