On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State ex rel. Christopher L. Shelton v. Smith, 2010AP719, District 2, 1/26/11 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; State Resp.

Shelton was sentenced on two pre-TIS counts: an active (indeterminate) prison sentence on one count and a consecutive term of probation on the other. He served out the first sentence, with the prison indisputably holding him 143 days past his release date.

State v. Ashley M. Toliver, 2010AP484-CR, District 2, 1/26/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Toliver: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick; case activity

Community caretaker doctrine supported, in the first instance, search of seemingly lost purse found in common area of apartment building; and, in the second, entry of apartment after co-inhabitant requested officer to lock it up, as he was being transported for medical care.

Honorable Mark J. McGinnis v. Mario Jimenez, 2010AP2208, District 3, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jiminez: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Jiminez BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The circuit court lacks authority to sanction a 17-year-old for failure to comply with conditions imposed for violating a local truancy ordinance.

¶4        Wisconsin Stat.

State v. Troy J., 2010AP670, District 1, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Troy J.: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The judge presiding over disposition-phase of a TPR wasn’t required to disqualify himself where his daughter was employed to work in the guardian ad litem office of the local agency providing GAL work under contract, given that she had no involvement in that particular case.

State v. Michael S. L., 2010AP2352, District 2, 1/19/11

court of appeals decision; for Michael S.L.: Leonard D. Kachinski; case activity

Restitution order of 200 hours’ community service, on adjudication for disorderly conduct for “prank”  bomb threat to school, and based on school’s estimate of economic loss due to evacuating students and staff for the bomb scare, was within juvenile court’s authority. Although Michael S.L. did not admit to making the threats himself,

State v. Justin J., No. 2010AP1796, District 3, 1/19/11

court of appeals decision  (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Secure detention of 30 days was proper exercise of discreiton:

¶10      In this case, the factors the court considered and its statements show that the court used a “rational and explainable” process to determine the thirty days’ secure detention. 

State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object

An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual assault victim’s,

State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of the pending charge.

State v. Craig A. Erickson, 2010AP1763-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Laboratory assistant, acting under direction of pathologist and following laboratory procedures, is qualified under § 343.305(5)(b) to draw blood. State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis.

State v. Thomas R. Paulick, 2010AP1883, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paulick: Robert C. Raymond; case activity; Paulick BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The officer’s conclusion of speeding may be based on a visual estimate “while looking in his rear view mirror,” ¶8, citing City of Milwaukee v.