On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Jaquita B., 2010AP1215, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jacquita B.: Jane S. Earle

Termination of Jaquita’s parental rights to her two children upheld, where the record shows the trial court properly considered: the children’s likelihood of adoption; permanency of a sustaining care contract in preference to guardianship;  Jaquita’s failure to offer stability to the children; and the11-year-old’s desire to return to Jaquita (the last rejected as not in the best if either child because it would lead to their separation form each other).

State v. Robert Wendt, 2010AP75-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable suspicion supported temporary stop of driver of truck idling at 1:30 a.m. behind business in winter with it snow plow up.

¶16 Here, there were “specific and articulable facts,” as set forth by Sergeant Paul during her testimony,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Miranda – Traffic Stop – Marijuana Odor and Probable Cause
Suppression of passenger’s statement due to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings leaves police without probable cause to arrest driver:

¶7        First, we will address the State’s argument that Kohel’s statement “[w]e just smoked an hour ago” was voluntary and should not be suppressed. 

court of appeals decision (3-judge); Resp Br; Reply

Sentencing Discretion
Sentencing court’s giving “public protection factor” “paramount” consideration proper exercise of discretion.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); Resp Br; Reply

Impartial Tribunal
Various rulings did not evince judicial bias, even if some displayed “irritation or impatience”; moreover, judicial rulings alone almost never establish judicial partiality.

S.C. Johnson v. Milton E. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, PFR filed 12/30/09

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 1:

We note that neither Russell’s nor Buske’s appellate counsel properly cite to the record. Record cites are often missing. An appellate court is improperly burdened where briefs fail to consistently and accurately cite to the record. Meyer v. Fronimades, 2 Wis.

court of appeals decision; for Garcia: Paul M. Ruby
Resp Br

Right to Testify – After-the-Fact Evidentiary Hearing
Remedy for failure to conduct colloquy required by State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, doesn’t automatically result in new trial but, rather, supports postconviction evidentiary hearing.

Robert Zellner v. Herrick, et al., 2009 WI 80, on certification

Issue/Holding:

¶3        …  In this court’s standard order accepting the certification, we stated that “the appeal is accepted for consideration of all issues raised before the court of appeals.” See State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis. 2d 66, 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986) (“When this court grants direct review upon certification,

Werner v. Hendry, 2009 WI App 103, PFR filed 7/17/09

Issue/Holding:

¶11      As a final matter, we observe that the appellant’s appendix fails to include the trial court’s reasoning. It is essential that the appendix include the record items truly relevant and essential to understanding the issues raised, particularly the trial court’s oral ruling. State v. Bons, 2007 WI App 124,

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Initial confinement totaling 36, and supervision of 17, years on sexual assault-related convictions wasn’t harsh and excessive:

¶48      Berggren’s sentence was not shocking, nor does it violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. As the State points out,