On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 2012 WI App 120(recommended for publication); case activity

A court doesn’t possess inherent authority to impose on counsel a sanction (here, monetary) for pre-litigation advice, that is, conduct occurring before the court’s jurisdiction was invoked:

¶3        We conclude that the record, particularly the trial court’s own words in its ruling, clearly shows that the trial court imposed the sanction for pre-litigation legal advice that the trial court believed Godfrey &

Ardonis Greer v. David H. Schwarz, 2012 WI App 122, petition for review granted 6/12/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 19; case activity

DOC Discharge Certificate (Probation, § 973.09(5)) – Wrongly Issued, Prior to Expiration of Term of Probation 

As a function of “administrative error,” the department of corrections issued Greer a discharge certificate before his term of probation had expired.

Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct 

Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against argument they “amounted only to a single act of contempt because they took place during a short period of time.”

State v. Robert M. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (recommended for publication); case activity

Although “the summons, complaint and the supporting affidavit must each be authenticated as a condition of personal jurisdiction when commencing a forfeiture action,” ¶1,  an authentication defect attributable to a clerk’s error is merely technical and doesn’t impair jurisdiction.

¶4        In Schmitt’s case, the first page of the summons and the first page of the complaint were each authenticated,

County of Marathon v. Paul R. DeBuhr, District 3, 2011AP2959, 10/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶13      At the outset, we observe that DeBuhr was given the opportunity to raise his concerns about Hackworthy’s testimony and retrograde extrapolation in the circuit court but failed to do so.  DeBuhr never responded to the County’s brief in support of admitting the testimony and never offered any argument in support of his earlier assertion that he believed retrograde extrapolation was “not proper science.”  As a result,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

State v. Frederick L. Lucht, 2011AP1644-CR, District 4, 9/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The record supports the existence of an agreement between Lucht and another to commit the crime of first-degree intentional homicide.

¶28      Lucht refers us to cases standing for propositions that a conspiracy cannot be based on a mere “agreement to negotiate,” see United States v.

court of appeals publication orders, 9/27/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 99 State v. Michael Anthony Lock

2012 WI App 101 State v. Mark M. Benson

2012 WI App 103 State v. Cody A. Gibson

2012 WI App 104 State v. Jason M. Jacobs

2012 WI App 105 State v.

State v. Pamela L. Hammersley, 2012AP1131-CR, District 2, 9/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Stop of vehicle, assertedly for violating local trespassing ordinance, held not supportable:

¶3        It is settled law that a stop cannot be based on an officer’s mistaken understanding of the law.  State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 3-4, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct.

Buffalo County Department of Health & Human Services v. Jennifer C., 2012AP1564, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Though not “independently admissible,” a long list of damaging items related to Jennifer’s background (such as theparent’s father’s sexual abuse of his daughters, and Jennifer’s own emotional and sexual abuse by her adoptive parents) was admissible to show the basis for an expert’s opinion that Jennifer was unlikely to meet conditions for return of her children:

¶16      Wisconsin Stat.