On Point: B. Opinions

Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity

¶3   If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …

…

¶26  We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.

State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2012 WI 24, affirming 2010 WI App 163; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; note: the court affirms the mandate (reversal of conviction and dismissal of charge), but “upon a different rationale,” ¶63; the net effect is, “affirmed, as modified“

Although homelessness is not in and of itself a defense to prosecution for failing to register as a sex offender, 

State v. Jeffery G. Sutton, 2012 WI 23, reversing summary order of court of appeals; for Sutton: Kaitlin A. Lamb, Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  for amicus, WACDL: Robert R. Henak; case activity

Although presented with an unpreserved but seemingly meritorious issue (defective jury-waiver colloquy) on § 809.32 no-merit review, the court of appeals nonetheless accepted counsel’s no-merit report, thereby affirming Sutton’s conviction, and instructed him to seek relief pursuant to § 974.06 even though he was no longer in custody and the remedy was thus illusory.

State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2012 WI 16, reversing 2011 WI App 21; case activity

¶32  We begin by addressing the circuit court’s application of the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel.  Judicial estoppel is intended “to protect against a litigant playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ by asserting inconsistent positions” in different legal proceedings. State v. Petty,

State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2012 WI 12, affirming 2010 WI App 58; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity

¶4   We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.09(3)(a) does not grant a circuit court authority to reduce the length of probation.  Rather, the plain language of § 973.09(3)(a) grants a circuit court authority only to “extend probation for a stated period”

State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2012 WI 5, reversing 2010 WI App 175; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

The trial judge’s daughter-in-law was part of the jury pool; Sellhausen didn’t seek her removal for cause, but used a peremptory to strike her, which rendered harmless any possible error in the trial judge sua sponte failing to remove the juror for cause.

State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2012 WI 4, affirming 2010 WI App 146; for Hanson: Robert R. Henak, Chad Lanning; case activity

Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements: “Willful or Wanton Disregard” 

Fleeing does not require “an evil or malicious state of mind” when disregarding an officer’s signal:

¶22  In Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3), “willful” modifies “disregard.”  In that context,

State v. Jason E. Goss, 2011 WI 104, affirming court of appeals summary order;  for Goss: Daniel J. Chapman; case activity

¶2   We are asked to determine whether the officer’s request for the PBT breath sample was made in violation of Wis. Stat. § 343.303, which states that an officer “may request” a PBT breath sample “[i]f a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated s.

State v. David W. Domke, 2011 WI 95, reversing unpublished decision; for Domke: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although Domke establishes deficient performance in several different respects, he fails to satisfy his burden of showing prejudice.

• Failure to object to hearsay testimony / medical treatment and diagnosis exception inapplicable to counselors and social workers.

In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand

Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:

¶5   Considering the interests of the court of appeals,