On Point

State v. Dwain M. Staten, 2011AP916-CR, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Staten: Michael J. Steinle; case activity

Postconviction DNA Testing, § 974.07 

Postconviction testing at state expense requires, among other things, that the defendant show a reasonable probability he wouldn’t have been prosecuted or convicted with exculpatory test results. Staten, whose defense to sexual assault was consent rather than misidentification,

State v. William Martin, 2011AP2168, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: unpublished decision (2007AP1293-CR)

Because the record conclusively demonstrated that Martin wasn’t entitled to relief, State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶26, 284 Wis. 2d 111, 700 N.W.2d 62, the circuit court properly denied without a hearing his claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective (for failing to argue appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness in several respects).

on review of summary order of court of appeals; for Mable K.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

TPR – Final Order – Appellate Standing 

Issues (from Petition for Review): 

I.        When a trial court grants partial relief on remand in a Termination of Parental Rights appeal, is further appeal precluded by the ordinary rules of civil procedure?

II.        Where the trial court determines that it denied the right to counsel during a TPR trial,

Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2012 WI 44; case activity

¶37 n. [11]:

In State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, this court recognized that the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver” are often used interchangeably, but that the terms embody distinct legal concepts.  Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,

State v. Herbert Ambrose Darden, 2011AP883-CR, District 4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Darden: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity

Trial counsel correctly construed the holding of State v. Miller, 231 Wis. 2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999):

¶16      This is not the first time that we have been asked to determine whether or not Miller created a bright-line rule that evidence of flight is inadmissible if there is an independent explanation for the flight that cannot be explained to the jury.  

County of Waukesha v. Thomas C. Groshek, 2011AP001371, District 2/4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Groshek: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

¶7        Deputy Smith was dispatched to a semi-rural area to investigate a report  that a motorcycle had been involved in an accident at approximately 1:30 a.m., around “bar time,” in the vicinity of a bar.  Smith was advised that following the accident,

State v. Michael F. Hyzy, 2011AP2503-CR,    District 2, 5/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hyzy: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to uphold OWI guilty verdict, against argument of failure of proof that roadways of gated community were “held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles.”

¶11      Construing this evidence in the conviction’s favor,

Jessica L. G. v. Gilbert G. J., III, 2011AP3000, District 2, 5/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gilbert G.J.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

Jessica sought termination of Gilbert’s parental rights to their child. They divorced shortly after the child was born in 1997, and Gilbert had had contact with the child only once since. Jessica remarried; her new husband wanted to adopt the child,

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

¶1   On April 17, 2012, Justice David T. Prosser’s Attorney, Kevin P. Reak, wrote and asked me to disqualify myself from participation in the above-captioned matter, asserting that I am a material witness. …

¶2   … I conclude that I am disqualified by law from participating in the above-captioned proceeding.  

State v. John E. Meddaugh, 2011AP237-CR, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Meddaugh: Theodore Perlick Molinari; case activity

¶9        Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the circuit court that Sturino put forth specific, articulable facts which warranted the stop when considered with the inferences from those facts.  Sturino testified that shortly after hearing tires screech, he observed Meddaugh’s vehicle “fishtail.”  Fishtailing,