On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions 

Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”

State v. Daniel Lee Rueden, Jr., 2011AP001034-CR, District 4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rueden: Eileen A. Hirsch, Kaitlin A. Lamb, SPD; case activity

Felon-in-possession, § 941.29, is not unconstitutional either facially or as applied in this instance; State v. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58, deemed controlling.

¶6        We need not discuss the specifics of Rueden’s facial and as-applied challenges because,

State v. Alexander Velazquez-Perez, 2010AP001128-CR, District 1/4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Velazquez-Perez: David Leeper; case activity

The court of appeals has authority to extend the deadline for filing a postconviction motion; Velazquez-Perez filed his motion within the deadline as extended by the court of appeals, and jurisdiction attached over appeal of the subsequent denial:

¶19      We conclude we have jurisdiction over the plea withdrawal court’s May 2,

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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