On Point blog, page 329 of 483
Guilty Pleas: Colloquy – Deportation
State v. Hou Erik Vang, 2010 WI App 118; for Vang: John L. Sesini; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶1 Hou Vang appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to second-degree sexual assault of a child and felony bail jumping. Vang argues WIS. STAT. §§ 971.08(1)(c), (2)[1] entitle him to withdraw his pleas because, although the circuit court provided the statutory deportation warning at his arraignment,
NGI – “Serious Property Damage”
State v. Wendy A. Brown, 2010 WI App 113; for Brown: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The significant risk of “serious property damage” underlying an NGI institutionalization-commitment, § 971.17(3)(a), doesn’t require physical damage to property; loss of money or goods — from identity theft in this instance — suffices:
¶13 The above definitions of property and damage are much broader than that which would be required to support Brown’s limited interpretation of property damage.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 6/10
publication orders, 6/30/10
2008AP002929
2010 WI App 72 Wendy M. Day v. Allstate Indemnity Company
2009AP000463
2010 WI App 73 Karen Poston v. Andrea L. Burns
2009AP000757
2010 WI App 74 Peter H. and Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Newell L. Easley
2009AP000760
2010 WI App 75 Cottonwood Financial, LTD v. Darcie Estes
2009AP000775
2010 WI App 76 E-Z Roll Off,
Obstructing, § 946.41 – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Roy B. Ismert, No. 2009AP1971-CR, District IV, 7/1/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Ismert: Kristen D. Schipper; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The evidence was sufficient to support the obstructing element that Ismert knew the police officer had legal authority to stop, question and arrest him.
¶14 We conclude that Lossman and Grobstick are persuasive on the facts before us.
Search-Incident: Automobile; Sufficiency of Evidence: Manufacturing THC
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Automobile
By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order:
¶9 Here,
Delinquency – Notice
State v. Justin H., No. 2009AP2935, District III, 6/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Justin H.: Leonard D. Kachinsky
¶9 However, even assuming Justin properly preserved a due process argument, we reject it. Due process principles require that a juvenile against whom a delinquency petition has been filed be given “notice … sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings … set[ting] forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.” State v.
State v. Marquis N. Singleton, No. 2009AP002089-CR, District I, 6/23/10
court of appeals decision; pro se; Resp. Br.
Sentence Modification – DNA Surcharge
¶2 Singleton was sentenced on July 24, 2002, and the circuit court ordered, as a condition of his bifurcated sentence, that Singleton provide a DNA sample and pay the applicable surcharge.[1] Singleton’s sole challenge is made via a motion to modify his sentence under Wis. Stat. § 973.19 (2007-08), and is addressed only to the adequacy of the court’s explanation for imposition of the surcharge under Cherry,
TPR – Harmless Error
Rock Co. DHS v. Calvin M. M., No. 2010AP816, District IV, 6/24/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley
Admission of hearsay, describing an act of domestic violence was harmless:
¶7 There are two reasons why we conclude admitting this apparent hearsay evidence was harmless error. We first observe that one of the elements the County had to prove at trial was that Calvin had not met all of the conditions for return.
1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent; Sanction – Appendix
State v. Patrick M. Zurkowski, No. 2009AP929-CR, District III, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Zurkowski: Michael J. Fairchild; BiC; Resp.
1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent
¶13 That Zurkowski killed June through a combination of repeated blows and cutting her tongue with a ceramic object he crammed in her mouth, rather than by killing her via a single fatal wound,
Plea-Withdrawal – Double Jeopardy
State v. Charles D. Brown, No. 2009AP2093-CR, District I, 6/23/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Martin J. Pruhs; BiC; Resp.
Under State v. Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d 915, 485 N.W.2d 354 (1992), a court may not sua sponte order withdrawal of a guilty plea, absent fraud or intentional withholding of material information.