On Point

State v. Ericka S. Thomas, Appeal No. 2013AP341-CR; District 1; 11/13/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This is a split decision over the proper application of § 973.20, the restitution statute.  The circuit court convicted Thomas of Medicaid fraud, sentenced her to imprisonment, and ordered her to pay $356, 366.33 (the total amount she and accomplices stole) in restitution.  At sentencing, her lawyer described her “extremely limited earning ability,” a statement bolstered by her PSI. 

City of West Allis v. Brandon J. Michaels, Appeal No. 2013AP710, District 1, 11/13/13; (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Michaels tried to appeal a municipal court conviction for disorderly conduct to the circuit court, per Wis. Stat. § 800.14.  He consulted the clerk of court and followed all of the instructions he was given.  That is, he filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court and served another one upon the City of West Allis Police Department. 

State v. Matthew Allen Lilek, Appeal No. 2012AP1855, District 1; 11/13/13, (not recommended for publication), case activity

The dispositive issue in this appeal was whether the defendant, who is legally blind and has suffered cognitive disabilities his entire life, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a no-contest plea to second degree sexual assault, with use of force, and to aggravated battery.  During the plea colloquy, defense counsel assured the court that experts had examined his client and,

State v. Steven L. Udelhofen, 2013AP1244-CR, District 4, 11/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court’s findings of fact regarding the circumstances of the stop of Udelhofen are not clearly erroneous despite the fact that he squad car video didn’t corroborate all the details of the officer’s testimony regarding his observations, applying State v. Walli, 2011 WI App 86,

State v. Bradley M. Jones, 2013 WI App 151; case activity

¶1        …. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.07 (2011-12) mandates annual reexamination of persons committed to secure treatment facilities as sexually violent persons. Following the Department of Health Services’ annual reexamination, Bradley M. Jones requested and was denied appointment of an independent examiner and counsel prior to review of his petition for discharge. Under the applicable statutes,

State v. Jack E. Johnson, 2013 WI App 140; case activity

As part of their investigation of Johnson’s involvement in a homicide, Wisconsin police wanted to search Johnson’s rented residence in Rosarito, Mexico. They contacted FBI Special Agent Eckel, the U.S. liaison between Mexican and American law enforcement authorities. Eckel called a liaison in Mexico and told him that United States law enforcement authorities wanted to search Johnson’s residence and needed to make sure the search was lawfully conducted so any evidence found could be used in an American court.

State v. Jeffrey M. Halida, 2013AP1298, District 2, 11/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Halida was arrested for OWI after a motorcycle accident. In response to routine medical questions asked before the blood draw, he told the officer he took two Oxycodone pills earlier that day for a hand injury. (¶¶4-6). The officer’s reference to Halida’s statement at trial was not prejudicial because “[i]n view of the record,

You know the NYC stop-and-frisk litigation where the Second Circuit sua sponte removed the district court judge.  The plaintiffs have moved for en banc reconsideration.  Read the story and the pleadings here.

Speaking of traffic stops, this one led to 3 enemas, a colonoscopy and a now lawsuit.  Ick.  Click here.

Public defender disbarred for sexually harassing clients.  And just what type of conduct qualifies as “sexual harassment”?  

Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity

This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.

The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise. 

Wood County Human Services v. James D., 2013AP1378, District 4, 11/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

One of the elements of protective placement is that the person has a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, § 55.08(1)(d). The County failed to prove this element by clear and convincing evidence because its psychological expert was unable to testify that James suffered from a permanent or likely to be permanent disability,