On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Alvin C. Harris, 2012AP518-CR, District 2, 9/12/12

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

Plea-Withdrawal 

Harris failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was defective, therefore his motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing:

¶7        Here, Harris’s motion alleged that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because of a defect in the plea colloquy.  

State v. Frederick J. Scott, 2012AP533-CR, District 3, 9/11/12

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

The threshold for illegal alcohol concentration is reduced from .08 to .02 for drivers who have at least 3 prior qualifying convictions. Scott had three priors, thus was subject to arrest and prosecution for driving with a PAC of .03. However, prior convictions may be collaterally attacked if obtained in violation of the right to counsel,

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

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

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.

Brown County Department of Human Services v. David D., 2012AP722, District 3, 95/12

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

Parent’s appearance by telephone held to satisfy right to “meaningful participation”:

¶10      “A parent’s rights to his or her children are substantial and are protected by due process.”  Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16,

Dunn County Human Services v. Eric R., 2011AP2416, District 3, 9/5/12

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

That counsel for the parent on a termination petition had, while serving as a family court commissioner 19 months earlier, entered a child support order against the parent, did not alone establish a conflict of interest.  Supreme Court Rule 20:1.12(a) (“a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge”),

State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12

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

Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz and Hendricks raise the same arguments: the elements of the underlying civil forfeiture must be proved to the jury beyond reasonable at the criminal trial;

State v. Noah L., 2012AP348, District 2, 8/29/12

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

After finding the proof sufficient to support a delinquency allegation, the trial court nonetheless declined to enter adjudication of delinquency, pending a report and recommendation from the Department of Human Services. The report was prepared, which included information not admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing, and the court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent.

State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12

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

¶11      Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s best interest.  Effectually, Robert argues that the trial court did not properly consider the factors set forth in Wis.

State v. Eric K. Fredlund, 2012AP742-CR, District 2, 8/22/12

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

An officer’s observation that a vehicle’s headlights “just appear[ed],” such that the officer couldn’t tell if the vehicle had been traveling down the roadway without lights, supported a traffic stop.

¶6        From the deputy’s observation of Fredlund’s vehicle at around “4 or 4:30 in the morning,” a reasonable officer could reasonably infer that Fredlund was violating the law by driving down the highway without the vehicle’s headlights turned on.  

State v. Paul J. Mayek, 2012AP398-CR, District 3, 8/21/12

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

¶8        Although we have concluded Rasmussen did not seize Mayek until after he approached Mayek’s vehicle, it is impossible to tell from Rasmussen’s testimony precisely when the seizure occurred.  Neither the parties, nor the circuit court, appear to have given serious consideration to the issue.  Rasmussen was not questioned about what took place after he approached Mayek’s vehicle.