On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Michael Perzel, III, 2011AP1190-CR, District 4, 12/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perzel: Waring R. Fincke; case activity

Blood test results are admissible without expert testimony to reflect a person’s bac at the time in question (in this OWI-related prosecution, at the time Perzel was driving), so long as the blood was drawn by a person enumerated in § 343.305(5)(d). One such person is a “registered nurse.”

State v. Michael P. Parizanski, 2011AP395, District 2, 11/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Parizanski: Andrew Mishlove; case activity

Seizure of motorist who had parked by the side of a road, leading to an OWI arrest, was supported by community caretaker rationale as informed by State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14, 315 Wis. 2d 414, 759 N.W.2d 598.

court of appeals publication orders, 11/29/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 145 State v. Joel D. Rhodes

2011 WI App 146 State v. Scott R. Long

2011 WI App 147 State v. Kenneth M. Davis

2011 WI App 148 State v. Brian K. Avery

2011 WI App 149 J.

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

State v. Tijuan L. Walker, 2010AP2587-CR, District 1, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Walker: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

Walker was tried for and convicted of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, § 940.25(1)(a), after his car collided with DeAnn Braggs’. A form accompanying the post-accident test kit containing Braggs’ blood (which had little or no alcohol content) noted that the vials of blood were labeled “Walker,

Dawn H. v. Pah-Nasa B., 2011AP1198, District 3, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Pah-Nasa B.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Given the proof of lack of parental responsibility as a ground for terminating Pah-Nasa’s rights, counsel’s failure to object to testimony about a fight between Pah-Nasa and his mother wasn’t prejudicial.

¶14      We conclude Pah-Nasa has failed to prove prejudice,

Melissa M. Hines v. Daniel K. Resnick, M.D., 2011 WI App 163 (recommended for publication); case activity

The requirement in  § 893.82(5)  that a notice of claim against a state employee must be “served upon the attorney general at his or her office in the capitol by certified mail” is satisfied “by certified mail addressed to the attorney general at his or her capitol office, Main Street office,

State v. Gustavo E. Lopez, 2011AP1037-CR, District 2, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lopez: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

¶8        While the record reveals that Lopez is correct in stating that the court took video evidence from the roadside stop into consideration when making the finding of probable cause, we disagree that this was in any way not allowed. When determining the facts available to the officer to formulate probable cause,

State v. Herbert L. Hamilton, 2011AP1325-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hamilton: Dixie Lippit; case activity

Although driver in single-car accident didn’t exhibit signs commonly associated with intoxication, the smell of alcohol on his breath coupled with his loss of control of the car provided probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test under § 343.303:

¶15      First,

State v. Jeffrey Steinhorst, 2011AP1360-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity

Steinhorst made a prima facie showing that he did not validly waive counsel in a prior OWI case; therefore, he is entitled to a hearing at which the State must prove proper waiver, by clear and convincing evidence, else the prior conviction may not be used to enhance his current case.