On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

certification request; case activity

Budget Repair Bill TRO

This case presents several significant issues involving justiciability and the remedies that are available under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 et seq.  As we will explain below, we believe that resolution of these questions will require clarification of the interaction between the Open Meetings Law and a line of cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine.

State v. Bradley A. Faber, 2010AP2325-CR , District 2, 3/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Faber: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶1        The State of Wisconsin appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing the criminal charges against Bradley A. Faber.  Faber was issued a pair of citations for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) (First offense) by the City of Delavan in November 2005 and February 2006. 

County of Sheboygan v. John A. Taylor, 2010AP2819, District 2, 3/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Taylor: Kirk B. Obear, Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Weaving within lane supported reasonable suspicion for OWI stop, State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634 (“repeated weaving by a driver within a single lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary for a traffic stop”),

Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

¶6        As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

State v. Quentin J. Louis, 2009AP2502-CR, District 3, 3/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Louis: Edward J. Hunt; amicus, Wis. Innocence Project: Keith A. Findley, Peter Shawn Moreno; case activity

Trial court grant of new trial in interest of justice upheld as proper exercise of discretion:  the issue in controversy wasn’t fully and fairly tried, given failure to adduce at trial medical testimony that the deceased baby’s injuries didn’t result from shaken baby syndrome.

State v. Emanuel M., 2010AP2175, District 1, 3/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emanuel M.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court made the requisite findings for SJOP disposition, § 938.34(4h): the juvenile was at least 14 years old; the adjudication offense(s) qualified under the statute; correctional placement was the only other appropriate disposition (as to which, the trial court’s multiple references to “Wales”

State v. Loren C. Purintun, 2010AP2493-CR, District 3, 3/15/11 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Purintun: Dan Chapman; case activity

¶9        Here, the totality of the circumstances provided Hodek with reasonable suspicion to stop Purintun.  Hodek was dispatched to a semi-rural area to investigate a report of either a shooting or a car accident.  He encountered Purintun about one-half mile from the address provided by dispatch. 

State v. Eric James Hendrickson, 2010AP1181, District 3/4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hendrickson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Under State v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82, 254 Wis. 2d 185, 647 N.W.2d 784, proof of a mental disorder implicitly proves requisite risk of sexually violent recidivism (“serious difficulty” controlling behavior). Therefore, “direct evidence” of such difficulty,

Waupaca County v. Heather M. Krueger, 2010AP1290, District 4, 3/10/11

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

Citizen’s detention of driver (for suspected drunk driving) until police arrived to effectuate probable cause-based arrest can’t support suppression of evidence because no state action was involved.

¶5        Krueger seeks suppression of evidence of her intoxicated driving obtained after she was stopped by Sparks,