On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Darrin Stingle, 2019AP491, District 3, 7/28/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Stingle is not the typical subject of an On Point post. He owns farmland in Outagamie County, and the DNR cited him for discharging fill material into wetlands on it. At a 1-day bench the trial judge twice made comments suggesting that he had prejudged the case. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. It also admonished (but did not sanction) the State’s appellate lawyer for requesting an extension two weeks after its deadline for filing a response brief.

State v. Leonard D. Kachinsky, 2020AP118-CR, 7/29/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2018, the circuit court imposed a harassment injunction against Kachinsky (then a municipal judge) based on his conduct toward M.B., the municipal court manager. This appeal concerns his conviction and sentence for violating that order by hanging a sexual harassment poster by M.B.’s desk and highlighting the term “sexual” each time it appeared.

State v. Jeffrey T. Ziegler, 2019AP858-CR & 2019AP859-CR, District 4, 7/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

To commit invasion of privacy in violation of § 942.08(2)(d), a person must, among other things, look into another’s dwelling “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification….” § 942.08(2)(d)1. Contrary to Ziegler’s claim, the allegations in the complaints in his cases provided a sufficient factual basis for this element, and thus his guilty pleas stand.

State v. Rodney Timm, 2019AP1922, District 3, 7/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

If you handle ch. 980 cases you know that 2013 Wis. Act 84 changed the legal standard under § 980.09 for determining whether a person committed under ch. 980 is entitled to a discharge hearing. But you don’t know what the Act 84’s revisions to the standard mean—because no one knows, not even the supreme court. The court of appeals doesn’t decide what the standard means in this case, either, but it teases enough thread out of the tangle created by Act 84 to conclude Timm isn’t entitled to a discharge hearing.

State v. Bobby L. McNeil, 2019AP467-CR & 2019468-CR, District 1, 7/21/10 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McNeil was convicted of drug offenses, obstructing, and bail jumping after a trial in two consolidated cases. His challenges to the joinder of the cases and to various evidentiary issues are rejected, but he prevails on the challenge to his sentence because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing.

State v. Antonio L. Simmons, 2018AP591-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Twenty years ago Simmons was convicted of three counts of recklessly endangering safety for shooting into a car carrying three people, one of whom Simmons had been fighting with in a bar shortly before the shooting. The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of Simmons’s request under § 974.07 for DNA testing of physical evidence found in the car he was supposedly in at the time of the shooting.

State v. Michael Thomas Martell, 2019AP927-CR, District 3, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer located and started following Martell’s SUV after getting dispatchers relayed a tip describing a vehicle driving erratically. What the officer saw provided reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.

State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762.

State v. M.A., 2019AP1089, 7/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.’s son J.A. was the subject of several delinquency petitions; each was converted to a JIPS proceeding because J.A. was not competent. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). Eventually, M.A. filed a CHIPS petition in an apparent attempt to alter the constellation of services available to J.A. The state fought the petition and lost, and continued its fight on appeal. Per the court, though the state alleges five different errors, they all generally boil down to the same argument–that M.A. didn’t identify any particular services a CHIPS finding would provide that were not already available to her. The court rejects all five flavors of the state’s complaint and affirms the circuit court’s grant of the petition.

State v. Desmond Myers LaPean, 2019AP1448, 7/14/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

LaPean pleaded to a sexual assault of a child with an agreement that the state would cap its recommendation at 10 years of initial confinement and 10 of extended supervision. But at sentencing, the state first recommended 12 and 12. After defense counsel’s objection, the state instead requested 10 and 14. Counsel didn’t notice the second breach, but the prosecutor eventually did, telling the court the agreement was for 10 and 10. The court gave 12 and 10.