On Point blog, page 79 of 117
Appellate Procedure – Sanctions and Inadequate Argumentation
State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.
Appellate Procedure – Sanction
Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion. Yet, as required by rule,
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory; Search & Seizure – Plain View
State v. Jason W. Kucik, 2009AP933-CR, District 1, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Kucik: Thomas J. Nitschke; Resp. Br.; Reply; Kucik Supp. Br.; State’s Supp. Br.
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory than Posited Below
¶31 We agree with the State that it is appropriate for us to consider the alternate basis to affirm the trial court that the State raised for the first time at oral argument.
Confrontation: Forfeiture Doctrine – Witness Unavailability; Authentication – Telephone Recording; Appellate Jurisdiction
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)
The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.
¶39 Therefore,
Collateral Attack – Serial Litigation Bar
State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2009AP2288, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Brief
¶14 Escalona-Naranjo requires that a defendant raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion or in the defendant’s direct appeal. See id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185. A defendant may not pursue claims in a subsequent appeal that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or direct appeal unless the defendant provides a “‘sufficient reason’” for not raising the claims previously.
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence, Undisclosed Exculpatory Evidence, Waiver Rule; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Sentencing
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence
The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.
The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;
Curative Instruction; Theft by Fraud – Sufficiency of Proof
State v. Lea B. Kolner, 2010AP1233-CR, District 3, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kolner: R. Michael Waterman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Curative Instruction
Any impropriety in the prosecutor’s opening statement (alleged comment on right to silence) was presumptively cured by the trial court’s instruction to disregard the entire opening statement.
¶11 Not all errors warrant a mistrial,
State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2009AP2916-CR, District 1, 10/26/10, review granted 11/14/12
Voluntariness – Statements to Probation Officer
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Sahs: Mark S. Rosen; BiC; Resp.
Sahs’ claim that his statements to his probation officer were given under compulsion is rejected, because the premise for the claim – a DOC form cautioning that he must reveal his activities else face probation revocation –
TPR – Right to Counsel – Violation, Structural Error
State v. Darrell K., 2010AP1910, District 1, 10/19/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Darrell K.: Jereny C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee
Darrell’s right to counsel was violated when the trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw then found Darrell in default as to grounds while he was unrepresented. State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, followed.
¶10 The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing Shirley’s attorney and in finding Shirley in default when she was unrepresented throughout the hearings.
Herbert Johnson, Sr. v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 07-2628, 10/18/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision, on habeas review of summary order of Wisconsin court of appeals
Habeas – Procedural Default & No-Merit Report
Johnson’s failure to assert an ineffective assistance of (trial) counsel claim in response to his appellate attorney’s no-merit report did not procedurally default that claim for purposes of subsequent collateral attack. The court follows Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.
Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance; Record on Appeal; Self-Defense
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR, District 1, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery
Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,