Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
OWI-Repeater – Challenge to Prior Conviction
State v. Jeffrey Steinhorst, 2011AP1360-CR, District 4, 11/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity
Steinhorst made a prima facie showing that he did not validly waive counsel in a prior OWI case; therefore, he is entitled to a hearing at which the State must prove proper waiver, by clear and convincing evidence, else the prior conviction may not be used to enhance his current case.
TPR – Sufficiency of Evidence, Likelihood of Meeting Conditions for Return of Children
Dane Co. DHS v. Nikita B., 2011AP2054, District 2, 11/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nikita B.: Suzanne l. Hagopian, Eileen Huie; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain termination of parental rights, premised on substantial likelihood parent wouldn’t meet conditions for return of child placed in foster care:
¶8 This court’s review of a jury’s verdict is narrow. Morden v.
Expert Testimony; Impeachment – Prior Convictions
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25-CR, District 1, 11/22/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), on remand from, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity
Expert witness qualification rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; here, it was well within that discretion to allow the following testimony:
¶4 Marchant, who described herself as a “criminal intelligence analyst” working for the Department of Justice,
Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8): DA Comment on Missing Witness; Appellate Procedure, Forfeiture of Issue: Sleeping Juror
State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity
Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness
“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110.
Sentencing – Inaccurate Information – Reliance Factor
State v. Lavalle Rimmer, 2010AP2680-CR, District 1, 11/22/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rimmer: Christian C. Starner; case activity
The sentencing court did not actually rely on concededly inaccurate information, therefore Rimmer isn’t entitled to resentencing.
Methodology for analyzing inaccurate-information issue recited, ¶¶11-16. Court suggests that something akin to explicit reference to inaccurate information required, ¶16.)
Discovery Violation, § 971.23(1)(g) – Prejudice
State v. Joseph Hammer, 2010AP3019-CR, District 1, 11/22/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hammer: Rex Anderegg; case activity
The State’s conceded discovery violation (failure to produce reports or photographs related to a trajectory rod investigation) prejudiced the defense and therefore entitles Hammer to a new trial on two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide: 1. the erroneously admitted trajectory rod evidence “severely undermined”
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Guilty Pleas – Prejudice
Gregory L. Payne v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 10-1869, 11/10/11
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Guilty Pleas – Prejudice
The state court erroneously concluded that, because Basinger would have been convicted anyway had he gone to trial, he suffered no prejudice from counsel’s erroneous advice as to the maximum sentence he faced on acceptance of the plea bargain:
That was a mistake.
Sentencing Discretion, DNA Surcharge: Ability to Pay
State v. Michael T. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (recommended for publication); for Ziller: Michael S. Holzman; case activity
¶11 On the basis of our review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Ziller. The circuit court considered the three primary sentencing factors and noted them on the record. See State v. Gallion,
TPR – Admission
Racine County HSD v. Bobby G. H., 2011AP795, District 2, 11/16/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bobby G.H.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Bobby’s phase-1 admission to termination of parental rights on the ground of failure to assume responsibility didn’t require that the trial court hear testimony before accepting the admission.
State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2010AP2514-CR, District 2, 11/16/11
court of appeals certification, affirmed 2012 WI 73; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity
Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2)
Issue certified: Whether the court of appeals’ prior interpretation of § 948.31(2) to require “initial permission” from the parent should be overruled, State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.