On Point blog, page 292 of 483
Sex Offender Registration – Delinquency Proceeding
State v. Timothy J. K., 2011AP1091, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy J.K.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The trial court’s requirement of sex offender registration, § 301.45(1m)(d)(1), is upheld against an argument that the court misconstrued an expert’s recommendation of no registration.
¶9 Timothy fails to clear the first hurdle of the Tiepelman standard.
Search Incident to Arrest – Automobile, Probable Cause to Search
State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity
Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the vehicle for evidence relevant to the OWI arrest:
¶9 Here, it was reasonable for Kinservik to believe that further evidence related to Billips’ OWI arrest might be found in the vehicle.
TPR – Grounds – CHIPS Order
State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity
¶18 “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,
Reasonable Suspicion – Abandonment of Property
State v. Rodney D. Johnson, 2010AP2470-CR, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Richard L. Kaiser; case activity
Acting on a drug tip, police targeted Johnson, and saw him driving a car with a cracked windshield. After Johnson got out of the car, the officers approached, and “asked” to talk to him, but he walked away. The officers then “asked” him to take his hands out of his pocket,
Newly Discovered Evidence: New Forensic Method, Photogrammetric Analysis; Interest-of-Justice Review
State v. Brian K. Avery, 2011 WI App 148 (recommended for publication), supreme court review granted, 2/23/12; for Avery: Keith A. Findley; case activity; prior 974.06 appeal: 2008AP500-CR; direct appeal: 1997AP317
Newly Discovered Evidence – New Forensic Method – Photogrammetric Analysis
Expert photogrammetric opinion, derived from video enhancement technology (“VISAR”) not commercially available until after Avery’s trial,
Appellate Procedure: “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture” – Civil Case Necessity of Post-Trial Motion
J. K. v. Mark Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (recommended for publication); case activity
Appellate Procedure – “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture”
¶1 n. 1:
In using the term “waiver,” we are aware of the recently decided case of State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, where our supreme court clarified the distinction between the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver.” See id.
Repeated Sexual Assault of Same Child, § 948.025(1)(a) – Mandatory Minimum Sentence – Jury Instructions
State v. Carlos G. Comas, 2010AP2687-CR, District 4, 9/29/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Comas: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Although Comas was charged with § 948.025(1)(a), repeated sexual assault of the same child by acts of sexual intercourse, the case was in effect tried under § 948.025(1)(ar) ,which requires acts of sexual intercourse or contact. Comas received a confinement term of 25 years,
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 9/11
court of appeals publication orders, 9/28/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 123 DOC v. Warren Lilly, Jr.
2011 WI App 124 State v. Steven A. Avery
2011 WI App 125 State v. Paschall Lee Sanders
2011 WI App 127 State v. James G. Brereton
2011 WI App 129 State v.
Sexual Assault; Charging Document; Excited Utterances; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault.
¶23 In this case, the trial court properly determined that Echols’ shooting M.F. subsequent to the nonconsensual sexual contact constituted great bodily harm.
Mental Commitment – Probable Cause Time Limit – Lost Competency to Proceed
Outagamie County v. Paul S., 2011AP920, District 3, 9/27/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paul S.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶9 Wisconsin Stat. § 51.15(5) provides an individual may “not be detained by the law enforcement officer or other person and the facility for more than a total of 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” without a hearing.