On Point

State v. Courtney J. James, 2014AP2230-CR, District 1, 8/25/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The prosecutor’s use of a peremptory strike to remove an African-American from the jury did not violate Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), because none of the three parts of the Batson are satisfied in this case.

Dane County DHS v. Connie H., 2015AP552, District 4, 8/20/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised it discretion when it denied Connie’s petition to revise a CHIPS dispositional order to lift a suspension of visits with her son, K.H.

State v. Susan P. Resch, 2015AP51-CR, District 4, 8/20/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

¶2     Resch fails to sufficiently develop any legal argument based on concrete references (much less based on proper citations) to pertinent portions of the record and the application of governing legal authority, and I reject her arguments on that basis. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals may decline to review inadequately developed issues). Any other approach would require me to abandon my neutral judicial role by becoming Resch’s advocate.

State v. T.P., 2015AP857, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Recently enacted statutes allow a circuit court to presume that a parent in a TPR proceeding has waived the right to counsel if, after being ordered to appear in court, the parent fails to do so and the court finds that failure egregious and without a justifiable excuse. The circuit court’s application of those statutes in this case didn’t violate the parent’s due process rights.

Milwaukee County v. Kent F., 2015AP388, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Kent’s argument that, under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179, he is not a proper subject for ch. 51 commitment because he is not capable of rehabilitative treatment.

State v. Vaughn Caruth Gilmer, 2014AP1873-CR, District 1, 8/18/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the deliberating jury to have a bag of marijuana that had been admitted into evidence because it aided the jury in assessing the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.

Village of Fredonia v. Bruce A. Gossett, 2015AP298, District 2, 8/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police need probable cause to believe the driver is operating while intoxicated before they can request a PBT from the driver of a noncommercial vehicle; but for a commercial driver, they can request a PBT if they detect “any presence” of alcohol or have “reason to believe” the driver is operating with an alcohol concentration above zero, § 343.303, and State v. Goss, 2011 WI 104, ¶12, 338 Wis. 2d 72, 806 N.W.2d 918. The “reason to believe” standard was satisfied in this case, so police properly asked Gossett—the driver of a semi tractor-trailer—for a PBT.

State v. K.K., 2015AP986, 2015AP987, & 2015AP988, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.K. argued that in deciding to terminate her parental rights, the circuit court failed adequately to consider the harm resulting from severing the legal relationship between her and her children given the substantial relationship she had with them. The court of appeals holds the court’s exercise of discretion was proper under Darryl T.-H. v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475.

State v. Randall Ray Madison, 2015AP451-CR & 2015AP452-CR, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Madison, who was charged with violating a domestic abuse injunction obtained against him by L.M., wanted to testify that L.M. “stalks me.” (¶5). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding this testimony.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. & Thomas Waltz v. City of Madison, 2015 WI App 74, petition for review granted 1/11/16, reversed 2017 WI 19; case activity (including briefs)

The state statute preempting certain local firearm regulations, § 66.0409(2), doesn’t apply to the rule prohibiting weapons on city buses adopted by the Madison Transit and Parking Commission. The plain language of the statute shows the legislature chose limited language that applies only to “ordinances” or “resolutions” enacted by a political subdivision, and the Commission’s rule isn’t an “ordinance” or “resolution” under well-established law, Cross v. Soderbeck, 94 Wis. 2d 331, 342, 288 N.W.2d 779 (1980).