On Point

State v. Shawn David Schulpius, 2012 WI App 134; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

SVP Discharge Hearing – Showing Required, § 980.09(2) 

Before granting discharge hearing on a ch. 980 petition, the circuit court must satisfy itself that the petition answers two concerns: First, under § 980.09(1) “paper-review” determination, the petition alleges sufficient facts to show that the petitioner no longer satisfies commitment criteria.

court of appeals publication orders, 11/29/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 119 State v. Marlee F. Devries

2012 WI App 120 Godfrey & Kahn, SC v. Circ. Ct. for Milw. Co.

2012 WI App 121  State v. Robert W. Schmitt

2012 WI App 122 Ardonis Greer v. Schwarz

2012 WI App 126 State v.

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity

Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection 

Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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