On Point: Published 2006

State v. Daniel J. Machgan, 2007 WI App 263
For Machgan: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue/Holding: An out-of-state administrative DL suspension, not the result of a refusal, isn’t counted as a “conviction” for purposes of OWI enhancement:

¶12      After examination of these relevant statutes, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 343.307, as the specific statute addressing out-of-state convictions, suspensions or revocations that are to be counted as priors for the purpose of penalty enhancement,

Root v. Saul, 2006 WI App 106
For Root: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Either slapping or punching someone in the face “is certainly conduct that can provoke others to attack”; and, because Saul indisputably slapped or punched Root in the face the jury could have found Saul the initial aggressor, the jury should have been instructed in accordance with Wis JI—Criminal 815 (embodying § 939.48(2), initial aggressor may not assert self-defense privilege except under enumerated circumstances),

State v. Andrew J.K., 2006 WI App 126

For Andrew J.K.: George M. Tauscheck

Issue/Holding: Where a juvenile, in response to a State’s motion to lift a stay on corrections commitment, stipulated to placement in a local program, his subsequent termination from that program subjected him to a lifting of the stay notwithstanding that the program was not a statutorily authorized dispositional alternative:

¶18      Although the court approved the stipulation,

Dane County DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, PFR filed 5/15/06

Issue/Holding: Holding the dispositional hearing beyond the 45-day time limit set by § 48.424(4) did not deprive the trial court of competency to proceed, where good cause existed for continuance under § 48.315(2), namely that the respondent’s attorney was going to be out of town during a portion of the limitation period, and the trial court expressly found good cause to schedule the hearing after counsel’s return,

Dane County DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, PFR filed 5/15/06

Issue/Holding: Holding the dispositional hearing beyond the 45-day time limit set by § 48.424(4) did not deprive the trial court of competency to proceed, where good cause existed for continuance under § 48.315(2), namely that the respondent’s attorney was going to be out of town during a portion of the limitation period, and the trial court expressly found good cause to schedule the hearing after counsel’s return,

State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether pre-custodial assertion (during standoff with police) of right to counsel barred interrogation following subsequent arrest.

Holding:

¶13      Hassel is dispositive here. … Observing that Miranda safeguards apply only to custodial interrogations and that Hassel did not argue he was in custody when he invoked his right to silence,

State v. Yediael Yokrawn Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114
For Backstrom: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether re-administration of Miranda warnings was necessary where the suspect had previously waived those rights following a “full and proper recitation twenty-one hours earlier.”

Holding:

¶11      Based on the record presented, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress Backstrom’s statement.

State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis

Issue1: Whether failure to electronically record Kramer’s interrogations requires suppression.

Holding1: Although the supreme court exercised supervisory authority granted it under Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 7, to require recording of juvenile interrogations, State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, the grant of authority to court of appeals under Wis.

State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd

Issue/Holding:

¶21      … Further, appellate counsel cited an unpublished case in her opening brief, contrary to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(3). This does not appear to be inadvertent, since the citation ends with the parenthetical “(unpublished).” Our supreme court has reasoned that the rule against citing unpublished cases is essential to the reduction of the overwhelming number of published opinions and is a necessary adjunct to economical appellate court administration.

City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06

For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning

Issue/Holding: ¶18 n. 6:

…This court is not so naïve as to believe that unpublished opinions, whether one-judge opinions, per curiam opinions or authored opinions sit in a file serving as dinner for book lice. [A tiny, soft-bodied wingless psocoptera,