On Point: 1. Appeals

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

Questions Presented (from Scotusblog): 

1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court’s precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel’s statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all?

2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr.

State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity

Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness 

“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110. 

State v. Joseph Hammer, 2010AP3019-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hammer: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The State’s conceded discovery violation (failure to produce reports or photographs related to a trajectory rod investigation) prejudiced the defense and therefore entitles Hammer to a new trial on two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide: 1. the erroneously admitted trajectory rod evidence “severely undermined”

In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand

Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:

¶5   Considering the interests of the court of appeals,

State v. Christina L. Contizano, 2011AP477-CR, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Contizano: Robert C. Howard III; case activity

At Contizano’s sentencing for obstructing, based on lying to the police about her daughter’s location, the trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in allowing Contizano’s ex-husband to advocate as a “victim” of the offense, in favor of a term of incarceration.

¶7        We conclude the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it considered the Walworths’ statements at sentencing.  

State v. Kenneth M. Davis, 2011 WI App 147 (recommended for publication); for Davis: Robert R. Henak; case activity; reissuance after prior decision withdrawn

Several items of testimony, coming to light after trial, directly contradict the trial testimony of the main State’s witnesses, leading the court to conclude that the real issue in controversy – Davis’s alleged involvement in a drug-house robbery and murder of an occupant –

State v. Edward Beck, 2010AP872-CR, District 4, 10/20/11

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

Circuit court is under no obligation to seek extension of the § 809.30(2) limitation period for its ruling on a postconviction motion.

¶6        Beck reads too much into the 2001 amendment to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(i).  The amendment simply added language to § 809.30(2)(i) specifying the entities that may request an extension,

State v. Joshua P. O’Keefe, 2010AP2898-CR, District 4, 10/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Keefe: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶7        O’Keefe contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Bannach and Wanta in which they read to the jury the “Diagnosis” portion of the medical reports because O’Keefe was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors who prepared the reports,

State v. Brian K. Avery, 2011 WI App 148 (recommended for publication), supreme court review granted, 2/23/12; for Avery: Keith A. Findley; case activity; prior 974.06 appeal: 2008AP500-CR; direct appeal: 1997AP317

Newly Discovered Evidence – New Forensic  Method – Photogrammetric Analysis 

Expert photogrammetric opinion, derived from video enhancement technology (“VISAR”) not commercially available until after Avery’s trial,