On Point

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,

on review of certification; case activity

Issue (from Certification) 

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the county adequately proved that Melanie L. is incompetent to exercise informed consent, in that: the county’s expert testified that she was incapable of applying an understanding “to her advantage” instead of “to … her mental illness … in order to make an informed choice” (§ 51.61(1)(g)4.b.); and she recognizes she is mentally ill and needs medication,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearing.

Brefka filed a request for refusal hearing outside the 10-day time limit in § 343.305(9)(a)4. Does a court possess competence to extend that deadline? No dice, according to the court of appeals: “Section 343.305(9)(a)4. specifically mandates that if the request for a hearing is not received within the ten-day period, 

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the defendant made the requisite showing for in camera review of the complainant’s privileged therapy records.

2. Whether, given necessity for in camera review, the complainant’s refusal to authority release of the records mandates suppression of her testimony.

The implications for the administration of State v.

on review of published decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to order destruction of a presentence investigation report (albeit under “unique facts”), after sentencing and entry of judgment.

And as to those unique facts? The PSI at issue contained information about uncharged offenses that the trial court determined “would be prejudicial to Melton as he went through the …

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.

2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether Sahs’ statements to his probation agent, along with evidence derived from those statements, were suppressible under the “Evans-Thompson” rule, which holds that a probationer’s statements which are compelled by the terms of probation – provide information to an agent when requested or face revocation – are covered by use- and derivative-immunity.

Sahs,