On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Dane Co. DHS v. Porfirio O. / Minerva L., 2011AP1247 et al., District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porfirio O.: Dennis Schertz; for Minvera L.: Steven Zaleski; case activity (Porfirio); case activity (Minerva)

The parents did not meet their burden of showing factual dispute as to whether their incarceration was the sole reason they were unable to meet conditions for return of the children under CHIPS orders,

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, ¶10, 307 Wis. 2d 372,

State v. James G. Brereton, 2011 WI App 127 (recommended for publication); for Brereton: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

After lawfully stopping Brereton, the police removed him from his car, towed it to a lot and then, after obtaining a warrant, attached a GPS tracking device. Ensuing monitoring led to information connecting Brereton to a crime. The court holds as follows:

• Fourth amendment concerns are implicated because the tracking device was placed inside the hood while the vehicle was in police possession and out of public view,¶8,

Kimberly A. v. Charles B., 2011AP129, District 3, 8/4/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Counsel’s strategic decision not to voir dire jurors about what they may have heard during a heated sidebar discussion, and instead to request a limiting instruction to disregard anything they may have overheard, wasn’t deficient performance, ¶12. Nor was it prejudicial, given that he “offers no evidence,

State v. Francine T., 2010AP3140 / State v. Emilano M., 2010AP2596, District 1, 8/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Francine T.: Theresa J. Schmieder; for Emilano M.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

¶17      Francine and Emiliano argue that the trial court lacked competence [5] to enter the June 2, 2010 TPR order because it did not have competence to enter 
the January 31,

State v. Richard K. Numrich, 2010AP1544-CR, District 2, 8/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Numrich: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Instances of prosecutorial misconduct (objecting in the jury’s presence to a line of questioning that implied the existence of inadmissible evidence; stating in closing argument that it is defense counsel’s “job to create doubt”) warranted neither mistrial, ¶¶15-16 (especially in light of curative instruction);

State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2010AP166-CR, District 3, 8/2/11 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hudson: James A. Rebholz; case activity

By rejecting and failing to cooperate with appointed counsel, after being warned of the consequence, Hudson forfeited his right to representation at trial.

¶27      In accordance with Cummings, Hudson was repeatedly warned by the court—and by outgoing counsel—that Carns would be his final attorney and that Hudson therefore needed to cooperate with him.  

State v. Kelvin L. Crenshaw, 2010AP1960-CR, District 1, 8/2/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Crenshaw: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

Counsel wasn’t ineffective with respect to: failure to argue a theory of defense unsupported by the evidence; failure to introduce medical records asserted to show police bias in conducting the investigation; failure to object to the concededly erroneous inclusion of “party to a crime”

State v. Daniel E. Krueger, 2011AP571-CR, District 3, 8/2/11 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Krueger: Ana Lyn Babcock; case activity

Prosecutorial failure to disclose a police report containing his statements that “were incriminating and any reasonable prosecutor would have planned on using them at trial” violated Krueger’s right to discovery, ¶23, citing State v. DeLao, 2002 WI 49,

State v. Andrew C. Holder, 2011 WI App 116 (recommended for publication); for Holder: Edward D. Burke, Jr.; case activity

Although the penalty enhancement scheme  generally allows increased penalty for each prior OWI conviction, § 346.65(2)(am)5. provides that “convictions arising out of the same incident or occurrence shall be counted as one.” Nonetheless, Burke’s driving under the influence across the Michigan border,