On Point blog, page 280 of 489
Mental Commitment – Involuntary Medication
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,
Double Jeopardy – Retrial after Mistrial
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, 5/12
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
Restitution – Finality and Double Jeopardy
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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Armstrong: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity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.
State v. Travis R. Anderson, 2011AP2005, District 3, 5/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anderson: Dennis M. Melowski, Chad A Lanning; case activity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.
Temporary Stop – Test for Seizure – Police Spotlight
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Macho: Leonard G. Adent; case activity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.
Plea Bargains: Breach by Defendant (Bail-Jumping, Fail Appear at Sentencing) – State No Longer Bound by Terms
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,
Warrantless Blood Draw – Medical Basis for Objection
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.
Medication Order, § 51.61(1)(g)4.b
Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2012AP99, District 3, 5/22/12, WSC review granted 11/14/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Melanie M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain involuntary medication order.
¶11 We reject Melanie’s argument that the expert needs to iterate the specific words of the statute in order for the evidence to be sufficient.
Service by Mail: Generally; Deadline, Administrative Proceeding: Computation
Karen Baker v. Department of Health Services, 2012 WI App 72 (recommended for publication); case activity
Service, by Mail – Generally
¶3 n. 2:
… In the absence of a statutory provision, the rule in Wisconsin is that service of notice by mail is not effective until the party receives it. Hotel Hay Corp. v. Milner Hotels, 255 Wis.