On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Joseph F. Brown, 2010AP832-CR, District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.

It violates § 347.12(1)(a) to flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle if the latter’s high-beams are not themselves lit. Because Brown flashed his high-beams within 500 feet of an officer’s oncoming vehicle and, according to the trial court’s findings,

State v. John M. Anthony, 2009AP2171-CR, District 1, 10/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Motion to withdraw Plea, Pre-Sentence

Based on trial court findings that Anthony decision to plead no contest was based on his attorney’s informed assessment that he was likely to be found guilty if he went to trial, the court of appeals rejects his claim that he was coerced into pleading by counsel’s lack of preparation and holds instead that he failed to establish a “fair and just”

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR,  District 1, 10/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery

Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,

State v. Dennis Butler, 2010AP864-CR, District 2, 10/13/10 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Butler: Kathleen A. Lindgren; BiC; Resp.

Frisk upheld, where initial contact came within community caretaker function, and Butler then gave cause to believe he was armed and dangerous.

¶13      We hold that Pergande properly exercised his community caretaker function during his entire encounter with Butler.  

State v. Salvador Cruz, 2010AP911-CR, District 2, 10/13/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cruz: Matthew S. Pinix; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Evidence of the effect of the defendant’s (alleged disorderly) conduct was relevant, without a showing of “proximity” to that conduct:

¶13      A.S. instructs that “[i]n addition to considering the potential effects of a defendant’s conduct in disorderly conduct cases … prior cases also indicate that the actual effects of a defendant’s conduct are probative.”  Id.

Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm

The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment.

¶7        …  First, Steven V. explained that its discussion of the use of summary judgment procedure on grounds proven by documentary evidence versus those proven by non-documentary evidence was not “mean[t] to imply that the general categorization of statutory grounds in this and the preceding paragraph represent a definitive statement about the propriety of summary judgment in any particular case.”  Id.

Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10

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

The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence.

¶16      Addressing first the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 48.422(7)(a),  the plain import of the requirement that the court “[a]ddress the parties present” is that the court engage in an on-the-record discussion,

State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2010 WI App 146 (recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 4; for Hanson: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Fleeing, § 346.04(3)

Can you criminally “flee” the police, if what you’re actually doing is driving to the nearest police station to escape what you believe to be a beating at the hands of the officer you’re fleeing?

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply

OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing

Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,

City of Kenosha v. Elizabeth R. Tower, 2009AP1957, District 2, 10/6/10  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tower: Michael F. Torphy; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Because the police knew Tower was merely stopped temporarily for the purpose of dropping of a passenger – an explicit statutory exception to illegal parking – they didn’t have reasonable suspicion to temporarily seize her for illegal parking:

¶10 The City argues that like the officers in Renz,