On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Daniel Lee Rueden, Jr., 2011AP001034-CR, District 4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rueden: Eileen A. Hirsch, Kaitlin A. Lamb, SPD; case activity

Felon-in-possession, § 941.29, is not unconstitutional either facially or as applied in this instance; State v. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58, deemed controlling.

¶6        We need not discuss the specifics of Rueden’s facial and as-applied challenges because,

State v. Alexander Velazquez-Perez, 2010AP001128-CR, District 1/4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Velazquez-Perez: David Leeper; case activity

The court of appeals has authority to extend the deadline for filing a postconviction motion; Velazquez-Perez filed his motion within the deadline as extended by the court of appeals, and jurisdiction attached over appeal of the subsequent denial:

¶19      We conclude we have jurisdiction over the plea withdrawal court’s May 2,

MaryBeth Lipp v. Outagamie County Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011AP152, District 3, 6/5/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Failure to decide a guardianship petition within the statutorily mandated 90 days of filing (§ 54.44(1)) caused the trial court to lose competency to proceed. Lack of objection didn’t waive the issue, ¶¶11-12, citing Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut,

Green County v. Janeen J. C., 2011AP2603, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Janeen J.C.: Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court, before entering an involuntary medication order, failed to make requisite findings that Janeen J.C. wasn’t competent to make an informed choice, Virgil D. v. Rock County, 189 Wis. 2d 1,

State v. Susan M. Thorstad, 2011AP2854-CR, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Thorstad: Charles W. Giesen; case activity

Mistrial was granted after the arresting officer, in contravention of pretrial order, testified that this was Thorstad’s second OWI. However, the officer was unaware of the order, because the prosecutor had failed to advise of same, an omission the trial court attributed to “laxness on the part of the State.” The trial court then ruled that,

State v. Eric Archie Armstrong, District 2/1, 2010AP1056-CR, 5/30/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Armstrong: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Setting restitution four years after sentencing didn’t violate double jeopardy principles, turning principally on whether Johnson “had a legitimate expectation of finality in the first judgment,” State v. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, ¶15, 313 Wis.

State v. Susan C. Macho, 2011AP1841-CR, District 2, 5/23/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Macho: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

¶8        In this case, Edwards’ actions in pulling up behind Macho and shining his spotlight into her car did not amount to a “show of authority sufficient to effect a seizure.”  Young, 294 Wis. 2d 1, ¶65 n.18.  

State v. James Ralph Whitwell, 2011AP1342-CR, District 3/4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Whitwell: Jefren E. Olsen, Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Whitwell challenges a warrantless blood draw, on related grounds: he objected at the time, informing officials that he suffered from a medical condition that made the draw dangerous absent certain precautionary measures; this objection to the draw was objectively reasonable. 

Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2012AP99, District 3, 5/22/12, WSC review granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Melanie M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain involuntary medication order.

¶11      We reject Melanie’s argument that the expert needs to iterate the specific words of the statute in order for the evidence to be sufficient.   

State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity

Mootness Doctrine – Generally 

¶8 n. 2:

The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.  An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.