On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

MaryBeth Lipp v. Outagamie County Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011AP152, District 3, 6/5/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Failure to decide a guardianship petition within the statutorily mandated 90 days of filing (§ 54.44(1)) caused the trial court to lose competency to proceed. Lack of objection didn’t waive the issue, ¶¶11-12, citing Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut,

State v. Wayne P. Harris, 2012 wI App 79(recommended for publication); for Harris:  Attorney Gary Grass; case activity

We know that “[a] defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information.”  See State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1  But what happens when the sentencing court relies upon a DOC-prepared revocation summary that is “technically true but misleading” or that is “written in a way that that invite[s] the court to draw negative inferences”? 

Green County v. Janeen J. C., 2011AP2603, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Janeen J.C.: Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court, before entering an involuntary medication order, failed to make requisite findings that Janeen J.C. wasn’t competent to make an informed choice, Virgil D. v. Rock County, 189 Wis. 2d 1,

State v. Susan M. Thorstad, 2011AP2854-CR, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Thorstad: Charles W. Giesen; case activity

Mistrial was granted after the arresting officer, in contravention of pretrial order, testified that this was Thorstad’s second OWI. However, the officer was unaware of the order, because the prosecutor had failed to advise of same, an omission the trial court attributed to “laxness on the part of the State.” The trial court then ruled that,

court of appeals publication orders, 5/31/12

On Point posts from this list:

2012 WI App 55 State v. Shawn M. Klingelhoets

2012 WI App 58 State v. Thomas M. Pocian

State v. Eric Archie Armstrong, District 2/1, 2010AP1056-CR, 5/30/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Armstrong: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Setting restitution four years after sentencing didn’t violate double jeopardy principles, turning principally on whether Johnson “had a legitimate expectation of finality in the first judgment,” State v. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, ¶15, 313 Wis.

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

Traffic Stop 

Probable cause found to support stop for unsafe lane deviation, § 346.13(1).

¶12      Here, DeNovi testified that, while traveling in a group of three vehicles, he observed Anderson’s vehicle drift into the outside lane for approximately 100 yards and then swerve back to the inside lane.  

State v. Susan C. Macho, 2011AP1841-CR, District 2, 5/23/12

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

¶8        In this case, Edwards’ actions in pulling up behind Macho and shining his spotlight into her car did not amount to a “show of authority sufficient to effect a seizure.”  Young, 294 Wis. 2d 1, ¶65 n.18.  

State v. Laurence W. Tucker, 2012 WI App 67 (recommended for publication); for Tucker: Robert T. Ruth; case activity

Tucker pleaded guilty pursuant to plea bargain, which terms included continuation of his release on bond and compliance with same. After Tucker failed to appear at sentencing, necessitating his arrest on a bench warrant and issuance of a new charge of bail jumping, the State informed counsel it was no longer bound by the agreement,

State v. James Ralph Whitwell, 2011AP1342-CR, District 3/4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Whitwell: Jefren E. Olsen, Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Whitwell challenges a warrantless blood draw, on related grounds: he objected at the time, informing officials that he suffered from a medical condition that made the draw dangerous absent certain precautionary measures; this objection to the draw was objectively reasonable.