On Point

State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon.

State v. Joseph Jordan, 2011AP1249, District 1, 6/25/13; case activity; (not recommended for publication).

What a challenging case.  A jury convicted Jordan of first-degree reckless homicide and other crimes.  He lost his direct appeal and then filed a pro se §974.06 motion requesting various forms of relief, including a new trial based on: (a) newly-discovered evidence, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel. He also filed several requests for counsel,

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Birl, USSC No. 12-399, reversing and remanding 298 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012).

SCOTUSblog coverage here.

TPR lawyers, this one is for you.

The dissent says the casual reader of the majority opinion could be forgiven for thinking that Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 points to only one sensible result.  See what you think.

Unwed mom became pregnant with the child of dad,

Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States, USSC No. 12-357, 6/26/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Sekhar, 683 F.3d 436 (2nd Cir. 2012)

Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” for purposes of a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951(a).

Investments for the New York government employees pension fund are chosen by the State Comptroller.

Village of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion; Justice Bradley, for a unanimous court; case activity

The 10-day deadline for filing a request for a refusal hearing, §§ 343.305(9)(a)4. and (10)(a), is mandatory, and may not be extended based on excusable neglect.

Brefka was issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privileges on December 12 after he refused a chemical test.

State v. Ebony D., 2013AP619, 2013AP620, & 2013AP621, District 1, 6/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP619; 2013AP620; 2013AP621

The continuing need for protection and services grounds for termination of parental rights, § 48.415(2), is not unconstitutional as applied to Ebony D. because the evidence shows she was able to meet the continuing-CHIPS order’s conditions for return despite her claim that her cognitive limitations made it impossible for her to fulfill the conditions.

City of Port Washington v. David A. Thompson, 2012AP2500, District 2, 6/26/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court did not err in allowing Hackworthy, the state’s chemical test expert, to give her opinion that Thompson’s BAC at the time of driving was 0.15 based on average alcohol elimination rates and the results of a blood test taken about an hour after driving (with a result of 0.15) and a breath test taken about two hours after driving (with a result of 0.11).

State v. Michael T. O’Haver, 2011Ap2930-CR, District 2/4, 6/20/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Change of venue

The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying O’Haver’s motion to change venue, applying State v. Albrecht, 184 Wis. 2d 287, 306, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1994). There were a limited number of potentially objectionable pretrial media reports describing the homicide and distress of the victim’s family.

State of Wisconsin/City of Sturgeon Bay v. Bradley H. Hart, 2013AP85, District 3, 6/18/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court’s finding that Hart refused a chemical is not clearly erroneous, despite Hart’s being from Illinois, where the law is different, and his acquiescence, without physical resistance, to the blood draw done after his initial refusal. He was advised of Wisconsin law before he was asked to submit to a test,

United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux, USSC No. 12-418, 6/24/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)

The Court holds that the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) applies to a person despite the fact he was convicted (at a court martial), and completed service of his sentence, before passage of the Act.