On Point: 1. Appeals

Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.

¶15      The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2011 WI App 131 (recommended for publication); for Beamon: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; petition for review granted, 4/25/12

Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements 

¶4        ….  In State v. Sterzinger, 2002 WI App 171, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 925, 649 N.W.2d 677, this court separated the language of § 346.04(3) into segments:  (1) No operator of a vehicle,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Inadequate Argumentation – Sanction 

Counsel’s woefully inadequate argumentation (“a single, underdeveloped legal argument” that, “(w)orse yet … was foreclosed by” prior precedent) not only dooms his client’s effort to resist deportation, notwithstanding palpable equities on her side, but has consequences for counsel himself:

… We are disturbed, however, by Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12

Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review 

The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule”

State v. Richard K. Numrich, 2010AP1544-CR, District 2, 8/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Numrich: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Instances of prosecutorial misconduct (objecting in the jury’s presence to a line of questioning that implied the existence of inadmissible evidence; stating in closing argument that it is defense counsel’s “job to create doubt”) warranted neither mistrial, ¶¶15-16 (especially in light of curative instruction);

State v. Daniel E. Krueger, 2011AP571-CR, District 3, 8/2/11 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Krueger: Ana Lyn Babcock; case activity

Prosecutorial failure to disclose a police report containing his statements that “were incriminating and any reasonable prosecutor would have planned on using them at trial” violated Krueger’s right to discovery, ¶23, citing State v. DeLao, 2002 WI 49,

Shelly J. v. Leslie W., 2011AP753, District 4, 7/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shelly J.:  Amy J. Lamerand Zott; case activity

Shelly’s motion to reopen her TPR judgment, 7 years after she successfully petitioned for voluntary termination, was untimely under the 1-year deadline imposed by § 806.07(1)(a) and (c), nor did she show “extraordinary circumstances” under subs. (h). As to her claim that the judgment was void under subs.

State v. David J. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Balliette’s pro se § 974.06 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, was insufficiently pleaded to require an evidentiary hearing.

Unless you’re an appellate specialist or a masochist –

State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2011 WI 73, reversing unpublished COA decision; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity

Although the State’s theory of motive was that Rhodes intentionally shot and killed the victim in retaliation for beating Rhodes’ sister the day before, the trial court reasonably precluded cross-examination of the sister on a prior instance where the victim severely beat her without response from Rhodes.