On Point

court of appeals publication orders, 7/27/12

On Point posts from this list:

2012 WI App 74 Jerred Renard Washington v. State of Wisconsin / State v. Jerred Renard Washington

2012 WI App 76 State v. Willie H. Jackson

2012 WI App 77 State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier

2012 WI App 79 State v. Wayne P. Harris

2012 WI App 82 State v.

Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 103 (Justice Ziegler);  case activity; companion decisions: 2012 WI 69, 2012 WI 43

Justice Ziegler, like Justice Roggensack and unlike Justice Crooks, recuses herself from a pending judicial complaint against Justice Prosser.

¶2   The highly unusual issue each justice is called upon to decide is whether he or she,

State v. Terry G. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI App 90 (recommended for publication); case activity

§ 974.06 Motion – Laches Inapplicable 

¶17 n. 14:

While we acknowledge the State’s argument that Vollbrecht’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion is barred by laches and its request that we certify the issue to the supreme court, we decline the State’s invitation.  The State concedes that the supreme court has previously held that laches does not apply under § 974.06. 

State v. Nick E. Sammon, District 2, 2011AP682-CR, 7/25/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search Warrant – Erroneous Information in Application

A detective’s application for a search warrant of Sammons’ residence asserted that Sammons had been convicted in Texas for drug and burglary offenses (in fact, both had been dismissed after deferred adjudication of guilt). The assertions in the warrant application were based on the NCIC database,

State v. Chavis T. Sheriff, 2011AP1202, District 2, 7/25/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Sheriff’s failure to respond to a no-merit report operates as a serial litigation bar to his subsequent, § 974.06 attempt to argue that trial and postconviction counsel were ineffective. State v. Allen, 2010 WI 89, 328 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 124, discussed and applied.

In the summer of even numbered years the Legislature establishes Interim Study Committees made up of legislators and members of the public who have experience in the field of the committee.  The topics are suggested by members of the Legislature and approved by the Joint Legislative Council.  There are three committees dealing with different areas of the criminal justice system with which the State Public Defender has an interest.  We recommended several staff members for these committees and received one appointment for each. 

State v. Troy L. Cameron, 2012 WI App 93 (recommended for publication); case activity

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness – Neither Presumptive or Actual for Increased Charges Following Rejected Plea Offer 

Cameron failed to establish prosecutorial vindictiveness in the filing of an amended information containing additional charges, after he rejected a plea offer to the original information. State v. Johnson, 2000 WI 12, 232 Wis.

Dane County v. Amy Jolene Judd, 2011AP2106, District 4, 7/19/12

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

Reasonable suspicion supported temporary stop, State v. Meye, 2010AP336-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 14, 2010) (“odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop”), distinguished:

¶7        I disagree that Meye is analogous to the present case.  

Jackson Co. DHS v. Robert H., 2011AP2783, District 4, 7/17/12

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

Both federal and state Indian Child Welfare Acts require that termination of parental rights to an Indian child be supported by testimony of a qualified expert witness “that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child,” 25 U.S.C.

State v. Brandon M. Melton, 2012 WI App 95, WSC review granted 11/14/12(recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

Under “unique facts,” the circuit court possessed inherent authority to order destruction of a PSI: the PSI contained uncharged offenses irrelevant to sentencing whose inclusion was improper under DOC rules; and, though sealed, it coexisted with a second PSI in the court file:

¶22      The circuit court did not articulate any public policy reasons for rejecting Melton’s request to destroy the entire PSI report,