On Point

Shawano County v. Anne R., 2011AP2040, District 3, 12/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anne R.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Anne R. challenges the extension of her mental health commitment / involuntary medication order, on the ground the County failed to prove she would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn, § 51.20(1)(am). The court rejects the argument,

State v. Jason E. Goss, 2011 WI 104, affirming court of appeals summary order;  for Goss: Daniel J. Chapman; case activity

¶2   We are asked to determine whether the officer’s request for the PBT breath sample was made in violation of Wis. Stat. § 343.303, which states that an officer “may request” a PBT breath sample “[i]f a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated s.

State v. Cedric O Clacks, 2011AP338-CR, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clacks: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to prove contested, fourth element of identity theft (intentional representation user of personal identification document of another authorized to use it), § 943.201(2)(a) as party to the crime.

¶15      Specifically, Clacks contends that handing the credit card to a sales clerk to make a purchase and signing the electronic credit card slip cannot,

Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity

¶7        Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons.  First, he appeared by telephone, not videoconference, and he did not waive his right to appear by videoconference.  Second, he could not hear what was being said during trial. 

State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2012 WI App 6 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for: Sobczak: Ryan J. Hetzel; case activity

¶6        The issue in this case is whether the girlfriend—as a guest in Sobczak’s parents’ home—had the authority to consent to the officer’s entry into the Sobczak residence and to the search and seizure of Sobczak’s laptop.[1]  We hold that she did

State v.

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation 

Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.

State v. Anthony D. Guard, 2012 WI App 8 (recommended for publication); for Guard: Richard L. Zaffiro; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Duplex, Common Hallway

Guard, a resident of a duplex upper flat, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hallway by which his unit was accessed, such that warrantless police entry into that hallway without consent or exigent circumstances violated the fourth amendment; factors enunciated by State v.

State v. Lisa L. Payne, 2010AP1995-CR, District 3, 12/20/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Payne: Eric R. Pangburn; case activity

The court, in imposing a sentence to prison confinement term of 13 months, expressly took into effect the possibility that Payne’s medical needs would not “be addressed adequately in a county jail.” Upon postconviction challenge to the sentence, “however, the court clarified that the length of Payne’s sentence was not dependent upon the care that she would receive in either jail or prison,”

State v. Douglas J. Richer, 2011AP1197-CR, District 3, 12/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Richer: Matthew F. Anich, Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Richer wasn’t in custody (to a degree associated with formal arrest) so as to require Miranda warnings:

¶15      Here, Richer’s argument focuses only on the time period before Mathison placed him under arrest for operating while intoxicated. He lists several factors he contends show he was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.  

From the academy:

• Deirdre D. Brown, “One Strike and You’re Out: Padilla Advisement About Public Housing Eligibility” (“Attorneys must begin to recognize that there already exist an ethical and moral duty to advise clients of the collateral consequence of the loss of public housing eligibility and that this duty to advise meets the Sixth Amendment requirement for effective assistance to counsel.”)
• David S.