On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent 

Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:

¶16      … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’”  Artic,

State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2012AP1204-CR, District 3, 11/30/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court undertook an appropriate colloquy with Strong before allowing him to waive counsel and represent himself, leading to guilty pleas. The court thus rejects his claim that his pleas were premised on a violation of his right to counsel, ¶12.

Strong had an apparent change of heart after entering guilty pleas: he turned around and made a request for representation,

State v. Travis J. Guttu, 2012AP129-CR, District 3/4, 11/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

After entering guilty pleas to multiple counts, Guttu unsuccessfully sought presentencing plea-withdrawal. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw the pleas on different grounds, more particularly: counsel was ineffective for failing to assert Guttu’s lack of knowledge that his plea to one of the counts (sexual assault) subjected him to potential SVP commitment under ch.

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity

Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection 

Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,

State v. Joel Steinhauer, 2012AP189-CR, District 3, 11/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

When the State fails to articulate the specific other acts testimony it seeks to adduce, the trial court acts within its discretion in ruling the testimony inadmissible without performing the 3-step analysis of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771–73, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

La Crosse Co. DHS v. Kristle S., 2012AP2005, District 4, 11/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The parent was given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the social worker with respect to conditions for the children’s return, in that the trial court permitted extensive questioning on these issues before instructing counsel to pursue a different line of questioning:

¶17      Our review of the record also demonstrates that Kristle had a meaningful opportunity to impeach Simmons’ credibility.

County of Shawano v. Justin R. Buntrock, 2012AP997, District 3, 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

A court lacks inherent authority to order an in-state defendant to appear personally at a forfeiture trial, and therefore may not default such a defendant who appears by counsel at trial. City of Sun Prairie v. Davis, 226 Wis. 2d 738,

Outagamie Co. Dept. of HHS v. Alicia H., 2012AP1508, District 3, 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Protective placement order upheld, against challenge to proof as to risk of harm (care, incompetence and permanent developmental disability being conceded). Fact-specific analysis won’t be summarized here (¶15). Proof necessary to protective placement recited (¶12), as is standard of review:

¶13      When we review a protective placement order,

State v. Tyler H., 2012AP914, District 3, 11/6/12,  court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support delinquency adjudication, where juvenile called mother “a fucking whore” after she struck him during a family “squabble” in their home.

¶9        We conclude Tyler’s conduct was of the type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.  First, we reject Tyler’s argument that his language could not provoke a disturbance because a disturbance was already occurring.

State v. William F. Vollbrecht, 2012AP49-CR, District 3, 11/6/12,  court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for first-degree intentional homicide. The jury was entitled to reject Vollbrecht’s testimony that the shot he fired into his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend was accidental.

¶12      Vollbrecht’s argument fails on two fronts.  First, consistent with Poellinger, the jury was permitted to accept Clark’s revised version of events and reject Vollbrecht’s tenuous explanation of what occurred at the time of the shooting.