On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp.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

Assistance of Counsel – Plea-Withdrawal

Counsel’s failure to file pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea wasn’t due to failure to investigate claimed newly discovered evidence, hence wasn’t ineffective: according to trial court findings of fact, counsel indeed considered the value of this evidence and moreover allowed Townsend himself to decide whether to file the motion,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

¶16     Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.

State v. Matthew C. Parmley, 2010 WI App 79; for Parmley: Christopher M. Eippert; BiC: Resp.; Reply

A sex offender may obtain an exception from the registration requirement 0f § 301.45(1m)2, if “the person had not attained the age of 19 years and was not more than 4 years older or not more than 4 years younger than the child.” At the time of his offense,

State v. Brian K. Sowatzke, 2010 WI App 81; for Sowatzke: Andrew R. Walter; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶13      Sowatzke had two countable OWI “convictions, suspensions or revocations” (i.e., he had two OWI convictions) at the time he was arrested on May 9; he had a BAC of 0.048 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9; his legal BAC limit was 0.08 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9.  

publication orders, 5/26/10

2008AP003192 2010 WI App 63 Charles F. Reuben, M.D. v. Keith D. Koppen

2008AP003235 2010 WI App 64 Curt Andersen v. Department of Natural Resources

2009AP000094 2010 WI App 65 Claudia D. Stumpner v. Charles C. Cutting, Jr.

2009AP000747 2010 WI App 66 Kalvin Loppnow v. Steven Bielik

2009AP001576 2010 WI App 67 Chad Novell v. Anthony Migliaccio

2009AP001669 2010 WI App 68 Roger H.

State v. David D. Ramage, 2010 WI App 77; for Ramage: Jevin J. Mulrooney; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Co-tenant’s permissive use of Ramage’s computers conferred on her authority to consent to warrantless police removal of computer and search of their contents. Contrary authority, People v. Blair, 748 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001); State v. Lacey,

State v. Carl Ralph Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70; for Eichorn: Melissa Fitzsimmons, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Evidence was sufficient to support stalking conviction, though the requisite “course of conduct” occurred over short span of time:

¶9     In sum, there is more than sufficient evidence under our standard of review to support beyond a reasonable doubt Eichorn’s stalking conviction.

publication orders, 4/26/10

2008AP001763 CR 2010 WI App 47 State v. Benjamin W. Mercer

2008AP002980 CR 2010 WI App 48 State v. Karon M. Asmus

2008AP002981 CR 2010 WI App 48 State v. Karon M. Asmus

2009AP000140 CR 2010 WI App 49 State v. Clifford D. Bvocik

2009AP000371 2010 WI App 50 Keith J. Johnson v. Washburn County

2009AP000385 CR 2010 WI App 51 State v.

court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Grounds

We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights. 

State v. Kyle Lee Huggett, 2010 WI App 69; for Huggett: Craig A. Mastantuono; BiC; Resp; Reply

The State forfeited a potential appellate argument by conceding it in the trial court, in response to Huggett’s postconviction motion, ¶14.

Unmentioned by the court: the State is the appellant. Why does that matter? Because the general rule is that the respondent on appeal may raise any argument,