On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hamilton: Dixie Lippit; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity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

Dane Co. DHS v. Nikita B., 2011AP2054, District 2, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nikita B.: Suzanne l. Hagopian, Eileen Huie; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain termination of parental rights, premised on substantial likelihood parent wouldn’t meet conditions for return of child placed in foster care:

¶8        This court’s review of a jury’s verdict is narrow.  Morden v.

State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), on remand from, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity

Expert witness qualification rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; here, it was well within that discretion to allow the following testimony:

¶4        Marchant, who described herself as a “criminal intelligence analyst” working for the Department of Justice,

State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity

Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness 

“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110. 

State v. Lavalle Rimmer, 2010AP2680-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rimmer: Christian C. Starner; case activity

The sentencing court did not actually rely on concededly inaccurate information, therefore Rimmer isn’t entitled to resentencing.

Methodology for analyzing inaccurate-information issue recited, ¶¶11-16. Court suggests that something akin to explicit reference to inaccurate information required, ¶16.)

State v. Joseph Hammer, 2010AP3019-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hammer: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The State’s conceded discovery violation (failure to produce reports or photographs related to a trajectory rod investigation) prejudiced the defense and therefore entitles Hammer to a new trial on two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide: 1. the erroneously admitted trajectory rod evidence “severely undermined”

State v. Michael T. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (recommended for publication); for Ziller: Michael S. Holzman; case activity

¶11      On the basis of our review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Ziller.  The circuit court considered the three primary sentencing factors and noted them on the record.  See State v. Gallion,

Racine County HSD v. Bobby G. H., 2011AP795, District 2, 11/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bobby G.H.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Bobby’s phase-1 admission to termination of parental rights on the ground of failure to assume responsibility didn’t require that the trial court hear testimony before accepting the admission.

court of appeals certification, affirmed 2012 WI 73; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity

Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2) 

Issue certified: Whether the court of appeals’ prior interpretation of § 948.31(2) to require “initial permission” from the parent should be overruled, State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis.