On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Traci L. Scott, 2011AP2115-CR, District 2, 3/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The court rejects Scott’s challenge to a prior OWI conviction, concluding that she aware of the range of punishments, dangers of self-representation, etc. General test recited:

¶2        A defendant facing an enhanced sentence based on a prior conviction may only collaterally attack that prior conviction based on the denial of the constitutional right to counsel.  

State v. Heidi L. Fleischmann, 2011AP2558-CR, District 3, 3/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fleischmann: Sarvan Singh; case activity

The State satisfied its burden of proving that Fleischmann operation of a motor vehicle, in a parking lot adjacent to an empty business building, was on “premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles,” § 346.61.

¶8        Whether a premises is held out to the public depends on the owner’s intent.  

Village of DeForest v. Lynn J. Braun, 2011AP2116, District 4, 3/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Braun: Robert Nagel; case activity

Stop for driving under the influence unsupported by reasonable suspicion:

¶11      I likewise conclude that there were insufficient facts before Officer Schaefer which could lead him to reasonably suspect that Braun was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.  

State v. Daryl J. Teska, 2011AP1010-CR, District 2, 3/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Teska: John E. German; case activity

Teska was originally placed on probation, sentences withheld, on 3 counts; jail time as a condition of probation was ordered as to 1 count. Probation was later revoked and although all 3 of sentences were imposed concurrently, credit for the time spent in jail as a condition of probation was allocated only to that particular count.

State v. Todd M. Anderson, 2011AP1499-CR, District 2, 3/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anderson: pro se; case activity

Frozen Lake Winnebago is a public “premises” within § 346.61, therefore supports prosecution for operating a vehicle on the lake while intoxicated. City of Kenosha v. Phillips, 142 Wis. 2d 549, 419 N.W.2d 236 (1988), discussed and applied.

¶9        Unlike the Phillips court,

State v. Jermaine Kennard Young, 2010AP2959-CR, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Young: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity

Reasonable suspicion existed to justify investigative stop of Young, based on a tip from confidential informant that someone matching Young’s description would be at a specified time and place to sell drugs.

¶13      When determining the reliability of a CI’s tip,

State v. Britney M. Langlois, 2011AP166-CR, District 4/1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Langlois: Philip J. Brehm; case activity

The court  of appeals upholds a trial court finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking an African-American juror (recent conviction for disorderly conduct) was non-discriminatory:

¶33      After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the trial court properly applied the Batson test.  

State ex rel. Gerald Porter v. Cockroft, 2011AP308, 2011AP308, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porter: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

 Ineffective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing is reviewable by habeas corpus, ¶10, citing State v. Ramey, 121 Wis. 2d 177, 182, 359 N.W.2d 402 (Ct. App. 1984). But, because there is no right to counsel on review of a revocation order,

State v. Timothy Jon Eloe, 2011AP1970-CR, District 2, 2/29/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eloe: John C. Orth; case activity

¶5        To be sufficient, a criminal complaint need only be minimally adequate in setting forth essential facts establishing probable cause.  State v. Adams, 152 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 447 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1989).  Further, the adequacy of the complaint is to be evaluated “in a common sense rather than a hypertechnical manner.”  Id.

State v. Miller X. Lark-Holland, 2011AP791-CR, District 1, 2/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lark-Holland: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

¶7        Lark-Holland’s first complaint is that his trial lawyer did not emphasize the mitigating factor that he said he was forced into committing the robbery, and also made several comments that he says undercut his character.  …  These comments, however, when read in full context,