On Point

State v. Jeffery G. Sutton, 2012 WI 23, reversing summary order of court of appeals; for Sutton: Kaitlin A. Lamb, Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  for amicus, WACDL: Robert R. Henak; case activity

Although presented with an unpreserved but seemingly meritorious issue (defective jury-waiver colloquy) on § 809.32 no-merit review, the court of appeals nonetheless accepted counsel’s no-merit report, thereby affirming Sutton’s conviction, and instructed him to seek relief pursuant to § 974.06 even though he was no longer in custody and the remedy was thus illusory.

State v. Jermaine Kennard Young, 2010AP2959-CR, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Young: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity

Reasonable suspicion existed to justify investigative stop of Young, based on a tip from confidential informant that someone matching Young’s description would be at a specified time and place to sell drugs.

¶13      When determining the reliability of a CI’s tip,

State v. Britney M. Langlois, 2011AP166-CR, District 4/1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Langlois: Philip J. Brehm; case activity

The court  of appeals upholds a trial court finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking an African-American juror (recent conviction for disorderly conduct) was non-discriminatory:

¶33      After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the trial court properly applied the Batson test.  

State ex rel. Gerald Porter v. Cockroft, 2011AP308, 2011AP308, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porter: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

 Ineffective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing is reviewable by habeas corpus, ¶10, citing State v. Ramey, 121 Wis. 2d 177, 182, 359 N.W.2d 402 (Ct. App. 1984). But, because there is no right to counsel on review of a revocation order,

State v. Elizabeth C. Emmenegger, 2011AP1214-CR, District 4, 3/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emmenegger: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sufficient cause for traffic stop upheld, citing State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634.

¶17      While any one of these facts, standing alone, might be insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion,

County of Sheboygan v. Kenneth E. Mauser, 2011AP2153, District 2, 2/29/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Mauser: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Failure to dim high-beam headlights, along with weaving within and outside the traffic lane, provided grounds for a traffic stop.

¶10      The circuit court properly looked to the totality of the circumstances and found the stop reasonable.  The circuit court did not rely exclusively on either the high-beam headlight use or the weaving;

State v. Timothy Jon Eloe, 2011AP1970-CR, District 2, 2/29/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eloe: John C. Orth; case activity

¶5        To be sufficient, a criminal complaint need only be minimally adequate in setting forth essential facts establishing probable cause.  State v. Adams, 152 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 447 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1989).  Further, the adequacy of the complaint is to be evaluated “in a common sense rather than a hypertechnical manner.”  Id.

court of appeals publication orders, 2/29/12

On Point posts from this list:

2012 WI App 14 State v. Demian Hyden McDermott

2012 WI App 15 State v. Anrietta M. Geske

2012 WI App 21 State v. James Lee Johnson

2012 WI App 25 State v. Dylan S. / Renee B.

State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2012 WI 16, reversing 2011 WI App 21; case activity

¶32  We begin by addressing the circuit court’s application of the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel.  Judicial estoppel is intended “to protect against a litigant playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ by asserting inconsistent positions” in different legal proceedings. State v. Petty,

State v. Miller X. Lark-Holland, 2011AP791-CR, District 1, 2/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lark-Holland: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

¶7        Lark-Holland’s first complaint is that his trial lawyer did not emphasize the mitigating factor that he said he was forced into committing the robbery, and also made several comments that he says undercut his character.  …  These comments, however, when read in full context,