On Point blog, page 313 of 483
Counsel: Request for Substitute – Effective Assistance (Disclosure of Communications, et al.); Double Jeopardy: Bail Jumping
State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Request for New Counsel
An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant requests change of counsel,
Juvenile Delinquency – Authority to Sanction 17-Year-Old
Honorable Mark J. McGinnis v. Mario Jimenez, 2010AP2208, District 3, 1/25/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jiminez: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Jiminez BiC; State Resp.; Reply
The circuit court lacks authority to sanction a 17-year-old for failure to comply with conditions imposed for violating a local truancy ordinance.
¶4 Wisconsin Stat.
Judicial Disqualification – Relationship to Guardian ad litem
State v. Troy J., 2010AP670, District 1, 1/25/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Troy J.: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
The judge presiding over disposition-phase of a TPR wasn’t required to disqualify himself where his daughter was employed to work in the guardian ad litem office of the local agency providing GAL work under contract, given that she had no involvement in that particular case.
TPR Grounds: Abandonment
Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here, because the alleged abandonment period began two weeks before the end of the CHIPS placement order,
Serial Litigation Bar: Application to Motion for Postconviction Discovery
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2011 WI App 22; for Kletzien: James A. Rebholz; case activity; Kletzien BiC; State Resp.; Reply
In a prior appeal, Kletzien unsuccessfully challenged denial of postconviction discovery, 2008 WI App 182. (See, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303,
Delinquency – Restitution
State v. Michael S. L., 2010AP2352, District 2, 1/19/11
court of appeals decision; for Michael S.L.: Leonard D. Kachinski; case activity
Restitution order of 200 hours’ community service, on adjudication for disorderly conduct for “prank” bomb threat to school, and based on school’s estimate of economic loss due to evacuating students and staff for the bomb scare, was within juvenile court’s authority. Although Michael S.L. did not admit to making the threats himself,
Delinquency – Secure Detention Order
State v. Justin J., No. 2010AP1796, District 3, 1/19/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Secure detention of 30 days was proper exercise of discreiton:
¶10 In this case, the factors the court considered and its statements show that the court used a “rational and explainable” process to determine the thirty days’ secure detention.
Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object; Comment on Another Witness’s Truthfulness – Failure to Object;Ineffective Assistance – Prejudice
State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object
An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual assault victim’s,
Speedy Trial – Belated Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence
State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of the pending charge.
Blood Test Admissibility – Lab Tech Qualifications, Blood Draw
State v. Craig A. Erickson, 2010AP1763-CR, District 2, 1/12/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Laboratory assistant, acting under direction of pathologist and following laboratory procedures, is qualified under § 343.305(5)(b) to draw blood. State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis.