On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Kacey G. Johnson, 2010AP1263-CR, District 1, 11/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnson: James B. Duquette; Johnson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Johnson forfeited his claim of a right to be sentenced by the judge who took his guilty plea, by failing to object contemporaneously. This is not a matter requiring the defendant’s personal assent.

¶11      Fundamental fairness is a general due process concept. 

State v. Joshua L. McDonald, 2010AP1045-CR, District 4, 11/18/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for McDonald: Tracey A. Wood; McDonald BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Duration

¶13      We conclude that the time it took for the deputy to ask McDonald whether he had been drinking that night and for McDonald to answer did not unreasonably prolong the stop.  

State v. William M. O’Donnell, 2009AP2962, District 2, 11/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Donnell: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; O’Donnell BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Because the evidence allegedly suppressed by the State wasn’t exculpatory, O’Donnell wasn’t entitled to an evidentiary on his postconviction motion asserting suppression of exculpatory material.

¶10      A circuit court, in its discretion,

State v. Kurt Daniel Schmidt, 2010AP1104-CR, District 3, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating § 947.012(1)(c). The second of two calls anonymously made by Schmidt in a matter of minutes to his wife during a pending divorce with custody in dispute,

State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.

Appellate Procedure – Sanction

Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion.  Yet, as required by rule,

State v. Devon A. Sheriff, 2009AP3095-CR, District 1, 11/16/10 

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.

Sheriff, convicted at jury trial of participating in drug sale, unsuccessfully appeals trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence codefendant’s statements.

¶12      We conclude that the statements that Sheriff sought to admit were properly excluded because they were irrelevant.

State v. Jason W. Kucik, 2009AP933-CR, District 1, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Kucik: Thomas J. Nitschke; Resp. Br.; Reply; Kucik Supp. Br.; State’s Supp. Br.

Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory than Posited Below

¶31      We agree with the State that it is appropriate for us to consider the alternate basis to affirm the trial court that the State raised for the first time at oral argument. 

State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held  sufficiently reliable to support stop:

¶12      We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case.  The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,

State v. Robert J. Ruggles, 2010AP1587, District 2, 11/3/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ruggles: Robert C. Raymond; BiC; Resp.

A driver doesn’t have a constitutional right to be informed that a blood draw could be performed without his consent.

¶9        It is well established that there is no constitutional right to refuse a request for a chemical test.  

State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2009AP2288, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Brief

¶14     Escalona-Naranjo requires that a defendant raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion or in the defendant’s direct appeal.  See id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185.  A defendant may not pursue claims in a subsequent appeal that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or direct appeal unless the defendant provides a “‘sufficient reason’” for not raising the claims previously.