On Point

State v. Timothy A. Jago, 2013AP1084-CR, District 1, 2/4/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move in limine to exclude other-acts evidence–specifically, evidence that Jago told the victim he has only pointed a gun at two people in his life, the victim and the man he killed in Illinois. (¶¶4, 16, 19). Jago’s trial lawyer reasonably relied on an agreement with the prosecutor to keep this statement out of evidence.

Whether you need a good laugh or a fresh, in-depth analysis on a hot legal issue, On Point has just the link for you!

New study ranks best jobs in America.  Can you guess where “lawyer” falls?  Hint:  somewhere after maintenance/repair worker.  Click here.

But wait!  See this article:  “Why Are Immigration Lawyers Sooooo Happy?”

Note to criminal defense lawyers:  White House urges low-level,

State v. Mark Peterson, 2013AP1398, 1/29/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); docket

After Peterson served a 120-day jail term imposed for failing to meet the conditions required to purge a contempt finding, he moved for an evidentiary hearing.  His goal was to show that serious errors had occurred at the hearing where the court ordered him to jail. The court of appeals found that since Peterson had already served his sentence,

State v. Javier Teniente, 2013AP799-CR, District 4, 1/30/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Teniente was on his boat in the chamber of Madison’s Tenney Locks waiting for the water to rise. Piqued by Teniente’s boisterous behavior, an officer standing on the wall of the lock engaged Teniente in conversation. (¶¶3-4, 15). This interaction wasn’t a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes;

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2014 WI 6, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Badzinski was charged with sexually assaulting his niece, A.R.B., during a family gathering at the home of his parents. (¶¶8-9). A.R.B. testified the assault occurred in a specific room–the basement laundry room. (¶11). But there was also testimony from multiple defense witnesses that it was not possible for the assault to have happened in the laundry room.

Village of Grafton v. Eric L. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23; case activity

“The issue presented is straightforward:  Must a court order the installation of an ignition interlock device when a defendant is convicted of first-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) and also has a prior conviction for an OWI offense?  The answer is yes.” (¶1).

Seatz was arrested for OWI. His blood alcohol content was .13.

State v. Thomas G. Felski, 2013AP1796-CR, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

For a second time the court of appeals reverses a restitution order and remands the case for the circuit court to explain how it arrived at the restitution figure.

Felski was convicted of performing home improvement services without a contract. In his first appeal, the court of appeals upheld the determination that Felski was liable for restitution,

State v. Ronald Terry, 2013AP1940-CR, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Terry was arrested and detained on a probation hold. (¶¶2, 5). About ten days later he was charged with obstructing and, on the same day, appeared in court for a probable cause and bail hearing. (¶3). He argues the obstructing conviction should be vacated because he wasn’t given a prompt determination of probable cause after being taken into custody as required by County of Riverside v.

Waukesha County v. Michael J.S., 2013AP1983-FT, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Michael has been on a court-ordered commitment for thirty-five years, except for a two-year period that ended in 1996, when Michael was committed under § 51.20 after an incident in which he rode his bicycle erratically on a highway and had a confrontation with police. Since 1996, Michael’s commitment order has been extended numerous times,

Eau Claire County v. Mary S., 2013AP2098, District 3, 1/28/14 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

Mary S. was placed under a Chapter 51 mental health commitment and involuntary medication order in 2011, and those orders were extended once. But when the County sought to extend the orders again, Mary objected and argued that the County, which bore the burden of proof, failed to establish that Mary was incompetent to refuse medication,