On Point: 1. Appeals

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rodebaugh: Bryon J. Walker; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR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,

In the matter of State of Wisconsin v. Bryan J. Stanley: La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County, 2012 WI App 42 (recommended for publication); case activity

Open Records / Public Access to Court Records – Treatment Records, Generally 

(Discussion with respect to newspaper’s Open Records request for information contained in NGI conditional release plan:)

¶25      While this is a criminal commitment case following an NGI finding under Wis.

Village of McFarland v. Jennifer M. Zetzman, 2012 WI App 49 (recommended for publication); case activity

Appeal to the court of appeals of a municipal ordinance or traffic forfeiture disposition may be based on the circuit court docket entries instead of a written final order, whether the case originated in municipal or circuit court:

¶2        In this case, Jennifer Zetzman was convicted in municipal court of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.  

State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2012 WI App 46 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 9/18/12; case activity

For unsuccessfully trying to put his hand down his 10-year-old niece’s pants, Travis was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, attempted first-degree sexual assault of a child under age 12, §§ 939.32, 948.02(1)(d). However, that particular form of assault requires use or threat of use of force and violence,

State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2012 WI App 48 (recommended for publication); for Thiel: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

SVP (Ch. 980) Supervised Release – Challenge to Conditions: Ripeness 

Thiel’s challenge to 2 conditions of his supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment are ripe for review (the conditions relate to possible detention in a correctional facility and administration of polygraphs):

¶7        The State argues that Thiel’s claims are not ripe for review because no circumstances have arisen where Rules 13 and 16 were sought to be enforced.  

State v. Jeffery G. Sutton, 2012 WI 23, reversing summary order of court of appeals; for Sutton: Kaitlin A. Lamb, Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  for amicus, WACDL: Robert R. Henak; case activity

Although presented with an unpreserved but seemingly meritorious issue (defective jury-waiver colloquy) on § 809.32 no-merit review, the court of appeals nonetheless accepted counsel’s no-merit report, thereby affirming Sutton’s conviction, and instructed him to seek relief pursuant to § 974.06 even though he was no longer in custody and the remedy was thus illusory.