On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

DOC v. Warren Lilly, Jr., 2011 WI App 123 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶2        The primary issues we address on this appeal and their resolution are as follows:

I.                   In light of Saenz, what is the correct legal standard for the showing DOC must make to obtain a court order continuing to authorize the forced feeding of an inmate?[1]

We conclude that in this situation DOC must show that: (1) if forced feeding is withdrawn,

County of Winnebago v. Matthew J. Miller, 2011AP661, District 2, 8/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Experimental Aircraft Association Air Venture grounds were sufficiently “held out to the public,” for purposes of OWI-related liability, because the EAA granted substantial access to the public via purchased passes.

¶7        The analysis in Tecza is most analogous to this case.  

Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the parent provided the child throughout the child’s entire life,” Tammy W-G.

State v. Richard Dean Boyer, 2011AP305-CR, District 1, 8/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Boyer: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

OWI trial, where the chemist who analyzed the blood sample testified, but the person who drew the sample didn’t: the court rejects Boyer’s argument that his right to confrontation was violated by his inability to cross-examine the person who drew the blood.

State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2010AP1599-CR, District 4, 8/11/11, affirmed, 2012 WI 68

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 68; case activity

If, during a (non-Alford) guilty plea colloquy, the defendant denies the existence of an element of the charged the offense, the court must refuse to accept the plea:

¶28      However,

State v. Jonathan M. Reynolds, 2011AP512-CR, District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reynolds: Steven Cohen; case activity

Reynolds collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction (on the ground waiver of counsel was ineffectual because he didn’t know the potential range of penalties) is rejected. Basic procedure discussed and applied, ¶8.

¶11      Reynolds testified that although he received a copy of the complaint,

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,