On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Kathleen N. v. Brenda L. C., 2010AP2737, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brenda l.C.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Brenda isn’t entitled to a new TPR trial in the interests of justice, notwithstanding a line of inquiry that went to the respective financial capabilities of Brenda and her sister’s family (which sought the termination). “The evidence established that Brenda had last seen Samantha approximately six months prior to the hearing at a family gathering and had only spoken to Samantha at that event for a few minutes,

State v. Toronee L. Kimbrough, 2010AP2676-CR, District 1, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Kimbrough: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Kimbrough’s challenge to sentence, as based on 3 instances of alleged inaccuracies:

1. the sentencing court’s reliance on the co-defendant’s statements as suggestive of Kimbrough’s own failure to accept responsibility for the crime (Kimbrough doesn’t meet his burden of showing erroneous attribution to him of the co-defendant’s statements,

State v. Altonio Laroy Chaney, 2011AP207-CR, District 1, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Chaney: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity; prior appeal: 2008AP395-CR

Chaney’s argument that an eyewitness had recanted his version of having seen Chaney sexually assault the victim didn’t satisfy the new factor test for sentence modification: the sentencing court didn’t focus on the claim that Chaney,

Outagamie County v. Lorna G., 2011AP1662, District 3, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorna G.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court’s reference to “potential” for harm was an “imprecise summary” of the §51.20(1)(a)2b test for commitment (“substantial probability of physical harm”), this articulation “was not a deviation from the” correct standard. Moreover, the trial court’s finding that Lorna G.

State v. Edward Beck, 2010AP872-CR, District 4, 10/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Circuit court is under no obligation to seek extension of the § 809.30(2) limitation period for its ruling on a postconviction motion.

¶6        Beck reads too much into the 2001 amendment to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(i).  The amendment simply added language to § 809.30(2)(i) specifying the entities that may request an extension,

State v. Steven C. Cushman, 2011AP957, District 4, 10/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cushman: John Smerlinksi; case activity

Probable cause to believe Cushman wasn’t wearing seat belt supported stop of his vehicle.

¶8        Wisconsin Stat. § 347.48 (2m)(gm) mandates seat belt use when operating a motor vehicle equipped with seat belts.[3]  In 2009, this statute was amended to remove language that had previously prohibited a law enforcement officer from stopping a vehicle based solely on the failure to wear a seat belt.  

State v. Christopher A. Anderson, 2011AP124-CR, District 2, 10/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anderson: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity

¶1        In this case, Christopher A. Anderson was arrested for disorderly conduct while at a hospital.  He contends that because police had no probable cause to take him from his home and bring him to the hospital, his seizure was illegal and, therefore,

State v. Wilson J. Behling, 2011AP483-CR, District 3, 10/18/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Behling: John M. Carroll; case activity

Probable cause that Behling’s backpack contained contraband supported its seizure so that a warrant could be obtained and the item searched:

¶28      We conclude Hoffman had probable cause to believe Behling’s backpack contained contraband or evidence of a crime.  Here, Hoffman’s seizure was based on the following facts: (1) Behling entered a county park where drug activity has occurred;

State v. Michael A. Clements, 2010AP1978-CR, District 4, 10/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clements: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Counsel’s performance not deficient, against claims that he failed to: impeach the complainant with a prior recorded statement; object on hearsay grounds to admissibility of her statement to a school counselor; object to the State’s closing-argument characterization of the sole defense witness;

State v. Joshua P. O’Keefe, 2010AP2898-CR, District 4, 10/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Keefe: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶7        O’Keefe contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Bannach and Wanta in which they read to the jury the “Diagnosis” portion of the medical reports because O’Keefe was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors who prepared the reports,