On Point

State v. Cecil Lennel Hudson, 2012AP702-CR, District 1, 11/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Hudson isn’t entitled to credit against his new (disorderly conduct) sentence because it runs consecutive to his old (ES-revocation) sentence:

¶9        At the time of Hudson’s plea and sentencing hearing on the disorderly conduct charge, Hudson’s trial counsel was aware that Hudson was going to be serving an additional eighteen months on the 2008 case.  

State v. Joel Steinhauer, 2012AP189-CR, District 3, 11/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

When the State fails to articulate the specific other acts testimony it seeks to adduce, the trial court acts within its discretion in ruling the testimony inadmissible without performing the 3-step analysis of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771–73, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

The Legislative Council study committees I mentioned in July are beginning to work on draft legislation that will be forwarded to the Legislature for its consideration early next year.

 Most of the legislation affects the SPD or our clients, but two drafts are particularly noteworthy at this point.

 First, WLC 0010/1, being considered by the Special Committee on Permanency for Young Children in the Child Welfare System, would return the ability for the SPD to represent adults in Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) proceedings. 

State v. Tony J. Lalicata, 2012 WI App 138 (recommended for publication); case activity

Probation is not an available disposition under § 948.02(1)(b) (child sexual assault). By mandating that “the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence” with a confinement portion of at least 25 years for that offense, § 939.616 forecloses the possibility of probation:

¶14      …  We conclude instead that § 939.616(1r) unambiguously prohibits probation,

La Crosse Co. DHS v. Kristle S., 2012AP2005, District 4, 11/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The parent was given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the social worker with respect to conditions for the children’s return, in that the trial court permitted extensive questioning on these issues before instructing counsel to pursue a different line of questioning:

¶17      Our review of the record also demonstrates that Kristle had a meaningful opportunity to impeach Simmons’ credibility.

Elliot D. Ray v. Clements, 7th Cir No. 11-3228, 11/19/12

seventh circuit decision, appeal following remand in 592 F.3d 793 (7th Cir 2010) (summarized in prior post)

… (W)e hold that in cases where the pro se prisoner’s post-conviction motion is not received, the petitioner must submit a sworn statement and some evidence to support his claim that he timely delivered the filing to a prison official,

State v. Bradley S. Johnson, Outagamie Co. Circ. Ct. No. 12CM495

circuit court decision; case activity

Panhandling prosecution under § 947.02(4) is dismissed with prejudice because the vagrancy statute is unconstitutional under first amendment analysis: panhandling (“begging”) is a form of protected speech and its criminalization under § 947.02(4) is fatally vague and overbroad. State v. Starks, 51 Wis.2d 256, 186 N.W.2d 245 (1971) (loitering statute unconstitutional as providing insufficient notice of prohibited conduct,

State v. Calvin L. Brown, 2012 WI 139 (recommended for publication); case activity

A guilty plea colloquy need not include an explanation of ptac liability when the defendant directly committed the crime:

¶13      …  Although the trial court did not explain that, by directly committing the La Quinta robbery, Brown was “concerned” in its commission as defined by the party to a crime statute,

County of Shawano v. Justin R. Buntrock, 2012AP997, District 3, 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

A court lacks inherent authority to order an in-state defendant to appear personally at a forfeiture trial, and therefore may not default such a defendant who appears by counsel at trial. City of Sun Prairie v. Davis, 226 Wis. 2d 738,

Outagamie Co. Dept. of HHS v. Alicia H., 2012AP1508, District 3, 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Protective placement order upheld, against challenge to proof as to risk of harm (care, incompetence and permanent developmental disability being conceded). Fact-specific analysis won’t be summarized here (¶15). Proof necessary to protective placement recited (¶12), as is standard of review:

¶13      When we review a protective placement order,