On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Herbert Ambrose Darden, 2011AP883-CR, District 4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Darden: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity

Trial counsel correctly construed the holding of State v. Miller, 231 Wis. 2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999):

¶16      This is not the first time that we have been asked to determine whether or not Miller created a bright-line rule that evidence of flight is inadmissible if there is an independent explanation for the flight that cannot be explained to the jury.  

County of Waukesha v. Thomas C. Groshek, 2011AP001371, District 2/4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Groshek: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

¶7        Deputy Smith was dispatched to a semi-rural area to investigate a report  that a motorcycle had been involved in an accident at approximately 1:30 a.m., around “bar time,” in the vicinity of a bar.  Smith was advised that following the accident,

State v. Michael F. Hyzy, 2011AP2503-CR,    District 2, 5/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hyzy: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to uphold OWI guilty verdict, against argument of failure of proof that roadways of gated community were “held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles.”

¶11      Construing this evidence in the conviction’s favor,

Jessica L. G. v. Gilbert G. J., III, 2011AP3000, District 2, 5/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gilbert G.J.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

Jessica sought termination of Gilbert’s parental rights to their child. They divorced shortly after the child was born in 1997, and Gilbert had had contact with the child only once since. Jessica remarried; her new husband wanted to adopt the child,

State v. John E. Meddaugh, 2011AP237-CR, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Meddaugh: Theodore Perlick Molinari; case activity

¶9        Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the circuit court that Sturino put forth specific, articulable facts which warranted the stop when considered with the inferences from those facts.  Sturino testified that shortly after hearing tires screech, he observed Meddaugh’s vehicle “fishtail.”  Fishtailing,

State v. Timothy D. Moseley, 2011AP892-CR, District 1, 5/1/12 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity

Moseley’s contention, that he qualified his written consent to search with an oral limitation, was rejected by the trial court as a matter of credibility; that finding of fact is now affirmed:

¶18      The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses.  

State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity

Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints, and any defendant was entitled to relief from the order “for good cause shown.”

Trempealeau County v. Charles O., 2011AP2794, District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Charles O.’s argument that the evidence fell short of the “fifth-standard” showing of dangerousness, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶14, 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851:

¶11      When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,

State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:

¶30      Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance.  She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she:  (1) is still on probation;

State v. Jonathan Phillips, 2010AP1490, District 4, 4/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Phillips: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; originally recommended for publication, changed per order 5/1/12

Although admittedly “inconsistent” in the way it defines “mental disorder,” when read “as a whole,” the pattern jury instruction for ch. 980 commitments (Wis JI—Criminal 2502) adequately conveys the required nexus between mental disorder and serious difficulty controlling behavior.