On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp.

Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed obtained the translation services of another officer at the time of arrest,

State v. Jason L. Sedahl, 2010AP1097-CR, District 3, 10/5/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sedahl: William A. Schembera; BiC; Resp.

The trial court erred in dismissing a pending charge on the theory that the charge (OWI) resulted from police failure to perform their community caretaker function (preventing him from driving):

¶12      …  No Wisconsin case holds that the doctrine places an affirmative duty on police to intercede and take a person into preventative detention prior to the commission of a crime. 

State v. Precious M. Ward, 2009AP2085-CR, District 1, 10/5/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Ward: Lew A. Wasserman; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Hearing-Impaired Juror

Juror who was hearing impaired, but not completely so; who could lip read; and for whom the trial judge took precautions to make sure he could hear everything, was qualified to sit.

State v. David J. Bucknell, 2010AP833-CR, District 3, 9/30/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bucknell: Rebecca M. Coffee; BiC; Resp.; Reply

A prior conviction, used to enhance a pending charge, may be collaterally attacked on the basis of denial of the 6th amendment right to counsel. Because “it is clear from Bucknell’s testimony at the hearings on his motion that he was aware of his right to be represented by an attorney at the prior proceeding and that he knowingly and intelligently relinquished that right,”

Village of Marathon City v. Jenny L. Nowak, 2010AP462, District 3, 9/30/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp. Br.

¶11      The five-factor Hanson/Kramer test is used to determine the accuracy of moving radar.[4] See Washington Cnty. v. Luedtke, 135 Wis. 2d 131, 133 n.2, 399 N.W.2d 906 (1987).  “If there is compliance with the Hanson/Kramer criteria,

Jeffrey J. v. David D., 2010AP1717, District 3, 9/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for David D.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

Parent’s right to confrontation was satisfied by in-chambers discussion between judge and children during which they spoke in favor of termination, where their father killed their mother and grandparents, and the judge reasonably determined that they would suffer emotional harm if required to submit to face to face confrontation.

Door County v. Andrew M. LaFond, 2010AP976, District 3, 9/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaFond: Robert C. Raymond; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The court rejects an argument that a driver has a due process right to be informed that a blood sample can be taken forcibly upon refusal to consent to a blood draw.

¶8        Our supreme court has held that the information required by what is now WIS.

State v. Christopher Jones, 2009AP2761-CR, District 1, 9/28/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jones: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The court rejects a claim of an “end-run” around the plea bargain, which limited the State’s recommendation to 10 years imprisonment while leaving the “configuration” of confinement and supervision to judicial discretion, based on prosecutorial comments:

• the “whole matter was “aggravated by the defendant’s record,”

Dane Co. DHS v. Tierra M., 2010AP1648, District 4, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tierra M.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects the idea that Tierra M.’s termination of parental rights wasn’t “fully tried” under the theory that the subsequently decided Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55 requires departmental services relevant to implied as well as explicitly ordered conditions for the children’s return.

Milwaukee County v. Earl Z., 2010AP704, District 1, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earl Z.: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

County appeal of dismissal of emergency detention at probable cause stage is moot, where facts supporting that requested detention are no longer operative. Exceptions to mootness — appellate court may reach merits if the issue is sufficiently important or likely repetitious but evasive of review —