On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115
For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas

Issue/Holding:

¶30      While Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5) recognizes the right of a parent to inflict corporal punishment to correct or discipline a child, that right of parental discipline has its limits. Kimberly seems to suggest that the statute prohibits only force that is “intended to cause great bodily harm or death” or that “create[s] an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm or death.” However,

State v. Tremaine Y., 2005 WI App 56, PFR filed 3/4/05
For Tremaine: Robert W. Peterson, Samantha Jeanne Humes, SPD, Milwaukee TrialI

Issue: Whether a ch. 980 petition is supported against a juvenile who was not placed in a secured correctional facility following the original adjudication on the qualifying sexually violent offense but was subsequently placed in such a facility as a result of additional offense.

State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams

Issue: Whether objection to admissibility of a defendant’s statement on the ground that it was “an offer of settlement” (which thus raised a § 904.08 bar) sufficed to raise a § 904.10 objection of an inadmissible offer to plead guilty.

Holding:

¶17      First, at the very least, trial counsel’s objection should have led the court to Wis.

State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71
Tillman, pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The issue on the instant appeal is whether the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo may be applied when a prior appeal was processed under the no merit procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo,

State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71
Tillman, pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶16. The no merit appeal procedure has its genesis in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and is codified in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. … Any motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders “necessarily implicates the merits of an appeal, because the premise of the motion is that the appeal is frivolous.”

State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, District 1, 10/19/04 (published); case activity

Issue/Holding:

¶8. … The State contends, however, that reconfinement orders may only be reviewed via common-law certiorari and not under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30. It relies on State v. Bridges, 195 Wis. 2d 254, 536 N.W.2d 153 (Ct. App. 1995) (per curiam).

…

¶10.

Derek J. Harder v. Carol L. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102

Issue/Holding:

¶15. If there are no further documents in the circuit court’s file and all substantive issues have been decided for one or more parties in an order or a judgment, there is usually less confusion about whether the time for appeal has begun to run, than when there is a subsequent court document. Our prior cases have attempted to remove confusion about when the time limits in Wis.

State v. Richard A. Brown III, 2004 WI App 33, reversed on other grounds, 2005 WI 29
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, at a § 980.08 supervised release hearing, an expert’s report filed under § 980.08(3) may be introduced into evidence, though hearsay and though the author does not testify.
Holding:

¶14. …. Generally, where a party secures the services of a psychologist or other professional in support of an action,

State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4).
Holding:

¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit court to appoint an examiner for the court, and we concur.

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that he lied to the police….,” ¶33.