On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,

State v. Gary R. Sampson, 2010AP1930-CR, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sampson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Sampson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Sampson was guilty of theft for keeping a down payment to make improvements to a business without finishing the work. However, he is liable for restitution,

State v. Joshua J. Hysell, 2010AP1817-CR, District 4, 1/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hysell: John Smerlinski; case activity; Hysell BiC; State Resp.

Phoned tip by driver who gave his name and described the subject vehicle as “all over the road” held sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion for stop.

Because the informant gave his name,

State v. Tushar S. Achha, 2009AP1977-CR, District 2, 1/26/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.

Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion

Failure to preserve a challenge to trial counsel’s performance via postconviction motion waives the issue on appeal, ¶19.

Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer

Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to negate entrapment defense rejected,

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; State Resp.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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Toliver: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick; case activity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