On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Alvin C. Harris, 2012AP518-CR, District 2, 9/12/12

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

Plea-Withdrawal 

Harris failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was defective, therefore his motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing:

¶7        Here, Harris’s motion alleged that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because of a defect in the plea colloquy.  

Chintan V. Patel v. State of Wisconsin, 2012 WI App 117 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶12      In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Patel’s writ of coram nobis.  The writ of coram nobis is a discretionary writ of “very limited scope” that is “addressed to the trial court.”  Jessen v. State,

State v. Frederick J. Scott, 2012AP533-CR, District 3, 9/11/12

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

The threshold for illegal alcohol concentration is reduced from .08 to .02 for drivers who have at least 3 prior qualifying convictions. Scott had three priors, thus was subject to arrest and prosecution for driving with a PAC of .03. However, prior convictions may be collaterally attacked if obtained in violation of the right to counsel,

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

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

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.

Brown County Department of Human Services v. David D., 2012AP722, District 3, 95/12

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

Parent’s appearance by telephone held to satisfy right to “meaningful participation”:

¶10      “A parent’s rights to his or her children are substantial and are protected by due process.”  Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16,

Dunn County Human Services v. Eric R., 2011AP2416, District 3, 9/5/12

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

That counsel for the parent on a termination petition had, while serving as a family court commissioner 19 months earlier, entered a child support order against the parent, did not alone establish a conflict of interest.  Supreme Court Rule 20:1.12(a) (“a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge”),

State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12

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

Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz and Hendricks raise the same arguments: the elements of the underlying civil forfeiture must be proved to the jury beyond reasonable at the criminal trial;

court of appeals certification, supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

 § 51.35(1)(e) Patient Transfer, Time Limits

Issue certified:

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity

Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility

The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide:

¶9        When applying the some evidence standard, “the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable construction of the evidence will support the defendant’s theory viewed in the most favorable light it will reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.”  [State v.

State v. Noah L., 2012AP348, District 2, 8/29/12

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

After finding the proof sufficient to support a delinquency allegation, the trial court nonetheless declined to enter adjudication of delinquency, pending a report and recommendation from the Department of Human Services. The report was prepared, which included information not admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing, and the court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent.