On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence

The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.

The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;

State v. Jason C. Walker, 2010AP83-CR, District 3, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Walker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶1       Jason Walker was sentenced after revocation of his probation.  The sentencing court considered probation violations that Walker denied committing.  Because of his denial, Walker argues the court could not consider the violations unless the State proved he committed them. 

State v. Lea B. Kolner, 2010AP1233-CR, District 3, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kolner: R. Michael Waterman; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Curative Instruction

Any impropriety in the prosecutor’s opening statement (alleged comment on right to silence) was presumptively cured by the trial court’s instruction to disregard the entire opening statement.

¶11      Not all errors warrant a mistrial,

State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2010AP1469, District 4, 10/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Following earlier unsuccessful challenges to his plea-based conviction via direct appeal and habeas, Obriecht utilizes coram nobis as an attack mechanism. He argues that his plea wasn’t knowing, and that requiring a plea as a precondition to participation in the First Offender Program violated due process. The court rejects the arguments because they don’t relate to factual error unknown at the time,

Voluntariness – Statements to Probation Officer

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Sahs: Mark S. Rosen; BiC; Resp.

Sahs’ claim that his statements to his probation officer were given under compulsion is rejected, because the premise for the claim – a DOC form cautioning that he must reveal his activities else face probation revocation –

State v. Michael A. Barahona, 2010AP1324, District 4, 10/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Barahona: Walter A. Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶14      The undisputed facts as disclosed from the record reveal the following:  (1) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle driving in the wrong direction in the eastbound lane of Campus Drive; (2) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle cross the dotted line dividing two lanes of traffic by approximately one foot and drive over that line for approximately one block when he was pulled over by Marks;

Barron County v. Dennis H., 2010AP1026, District 3, 10/19/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dennis H.: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Evidence held sufficient to support finding of dangerousness.

1) Recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm. A psychologist testified that Dennis at times displayed aggressive behavior (“he changes at the snap of the finger and will become highly excitable,

State v. Darrell K., 2010AP1910, District 1, 10/19/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Darrell K.: Jereny C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee

Darrell’s right to counsel was violated when the trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw then found Darrell in default as to grounds while he was unrepresented. State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, followed.

¶10      The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing Shirley’s attorney and in finding Shirley in default when she was unrepresented throughout the hearings.  

Dane Co. DHS v. Samuel W., 2009AP2606 , District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Samuel W.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Under Sheboygan County DHHS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55, although a CHIPS dispositional order must set forth the “specific services” to be provided, it may do so implicitly. Applying that holding here, the court of appeals concludes that the conditions for return in the CHIPS order were not so “generic”

State v. Joseph F. Brown, 2010AP832-CR, District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.

It violates § 347.12(1)(a) to flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle if the latter’s high-beams are not themselves lit. Because Brown flashed his high-beams within 500 feet of an officer’s oncoming vehicle and, according to the trial court’s findings,