On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

court of appeals publication orders, 8/30/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 116 State v. Andrew C. Holder

2011 WI App 118 State v. Dimitrius Anagnos

State v. Troy A. Keys, 2011AP550-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keys: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held insufficient to support scienter element of illegal possession of prescription drug,  § 450.11(7)(h). A pill container, container 2 Citalopram pills, were found on Keys’ coffee table The court rejects the State’s argument that the jury reasonably could have inferred Keys’

State v. Thomas J. Haiduk, 2011AP551-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haiduk: Gary S. Cirilli; case activity

In determining restitution for home improvement-related theft, the trial court failed to resolve whether the underlying contract was fixed-price or time-and-materials, therefore remand is necessary.

¶22      The court’s value-based $100,517.96 offset, and corresponding $35,877.33 restitution award, only includes an offset for the costof Haiduk’s materials,

State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity

Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to exercise this authority sua sponte, 

State v. Joseph Gayden, 2010AP2360-CR,District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gayden: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

The difference between Wis JI-Criminal 800 and 805 is that the latter limits the defendant’s intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v. Stephen R. Jones, 2011AP864-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication; for Jones: Brian P. Dimmer; case activity)

Failure to move to strike juror wasn’t deficient performance. Juror’s public support of election of the presiding judge and the district attorney (who was not herself prosecuting this case) didn’t establish a significant relationship with either individual to establish “objective bias.” State v.

State v. Jeffrey D. Knickmeier, 2011AP368-CR, District 4, 11/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

The court upholds the sentence – 2, concurrent 6-month jail terms for theft by bailee – of disbarred attorney Knickmeier. The court patiently discusses each of Knickmeier’s challenges to sentencing discretion (some of which, to be blunt, seem frivolous), and concludes:

¶12      In summary,

State v. William M. Hughes, 2011AP647-CR, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hughes: Michael C. Witt; case activity

Traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion to believe Hughes was operating while intoxicated:

• The stop occurred at night, after a football game, when there is an increased frequency of drunk driving;
• Citizen informant reported observing vehicle weaving outside lane of travel on Interstate,

Rock Co. HSD v. Timothy F., 2011AP1354, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy F.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

The court rejects Timothy F.’s challenge to grant of summary judgment as to grounds for termination (abandonment, § 48.415(1)(a)2.): even if Timothy arguably had “good cause” for not visiting his child (Timothy had absconded from probation in fear of possible revocation),

State v. Steven A. Avery, 2011 WI App 124 (recommended for publication); for Avery: Martha K. Askins, Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Search Warrant – Execution – Reasonableness 

Warrant-based search of Avery’s property was a reasonable continuation of the original search 3 days earlier.

General statement:

¶18      Generally, searches are subject to the “one warrant, one search” rule.