On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Managed Health Services Insurance Corp. v. Wisconsin DHS, 2010AP2551, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication ); case activity

Managed Health’s appeal related to contract procurement is dismissed as moot; because of failure to seek a stay of the trial court’s order allowing the process to continue, the contracts have already been let, and therefore even if Managed Health were to prevail, no remedy could be awarded.

Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.

¶15      The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,

State v. Carl Mills, 2010AP1746-CR, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Mills: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Trail counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions and verdict forms with respect to unanimity on multiple counts of sexual assault of a single victim, even though the verdict forms did not specify the types of sexual intercourse involved; 

State v. Andrew W. Rosenthal, 2011AP828-CR, District 3, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rosenthal: Erica L. Bauer; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car, at 2:30 a.m., in isolated area which was site of frequent break-ins; State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 47, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997), distinguished:

¶14      Here, conversely, we conclude that Rosenthal’s conduct does not describe the conduct of a large number of innocent persons.  

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

State v. Lakesha M., 2011AP1280, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lakesha M.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Termination of parental rights affirmed, court rejecting argument that procedural requirements of §§ 48.422(8) & 48.422(9)(a) (where petition not brought by agency, court “shall” order parent to provide certain information) violated:

¶5        The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did not file the petitions here.  

State v. William M. Hart, 2011AP582, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hart: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Although a (DOT-prepared) blood alcohol chart is admissible without expert testimony, State v. Hinz, 121 Wis. 2d 282, 284–85, 360 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1984), nonethless, “the proponent must lay the proper foundation for the evidence, and the burden does not shift to the opponent unless the proponent does so,” 

State v. Troy A. Keys, 2011AP550-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keys: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held insufficient to support scienter element of illegal possession of prescription drug,  § 450.11(7)(h). A pill container, container 2 Citalopram pills, were found on Keys’ coffee table The court rejects the State’s argument that the jury reasonably could have inferred Keys’

State v. Thomas J. Haiduk, 2011AP551-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haiduk: Gary S. Cirilli; case activity

In determining restitution for home improvement-related theft, the trial court failed to resolve whether the underlying contract was fixed-price or time-and-materials, therefore remand is necessary.

¶22      The court’s value-based $100,517.96 offset, and corresponding $35,877.33 restitution award, only includes an offset for the costof Haiduk’s materials,

State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11

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

Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to exercise this authority sua sponte,