On Point

City of Sheboygan v. Kathy L. Reindl-Knaak, 2011AP1090, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reindl-Knaal: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

¶7        The parties do not dispute that Reindl-Knaak’s vehicle had an expired front license plate, that the temporary plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle was later determined to be valid, and that Jaeger had probable cause to continue Reindl-Knaak’s detention based on the odor of alcohol and her “slow” speech.  

Chester B. v. Larry D., 2011AP926, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Entry of default against parent imprisoned out of state violated his right to due process under the circumstances. On receipt of the petition and summons, Larry contacted the petitioner’s attorney and said he wanted representation. The attorney then contacted the SPD.

State v. Frank Plum, 2011AP956-CR, District 3, 11/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Plum: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The officer who stopped Plum for suspected drunk driving testified that Plum refused to answer questions about the type or amount of medication he had consumed: this amounted to an impermissible comment on Plum’s right to silence, notwithstanding that questioning occurred before custodial interrogation (thus,

Matthew Steffes v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-3317, 11/4/11

seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief on review of 2006AP1633-CR

The “concurrent sentence doctrine” – which “allows appellate courts to decline to review a conviction carrying a concurrent sentence when one ‘concurrent’ conviction has been found valid,” Cheeks v. Gaetz, 571 F.3d 680, 684-85 (7th Cir.2009) – doesn’t apply here in view of a separate assessment and the potential to affect parolability:

…

State v. David W. Domke, 2011 WI 95, reversing unpublished decision; for Domke: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although Domke establishes deficient performance in several different respects, he fails to satisfy his burden of showing prejudice.

• Failure to object to hearsay testimony / medical treatment and diagnosis exception inapplicable to counselors and social workers.

In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand

Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:

¶5   Considering the interests of the court of appeals,

Cavazos v. Shirley Ree Smith, USSC No. 10-1115, 10/31/11 (per curiam); prior history: Smith v. Mitchell, 437 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated and remanded in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006) by Patrick v. Smith, 550 U. S. 915, reinstated on remand, 508 F. 3d 1256 (2007); vacated and remanded in light of McDaniel v.

Dane Co. DHS v. Lamont B., 2011AP1750, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lamont B.: Ann T. Bowe; case activity

The trial court properly exercised discretion in terminating parental rights, rather than dismissing the petition and transferring guardianship of the children to their foster parents pursuant to §§ 48.977(2) and § 48.427(3m)(c).

¶6        Six factors must be satisfied for a court to appoint a guardian under Wis.

State v. Christina L. Contizano, 2011AP477-CR, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Contizano: Robert C. Howard III; case activity

At Contizano’s sentencing for obstructing, based on lying to the police about her daughter’s location, the trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in allowing Contizano’s ex-husband to advocate as a “victim” of the offense, in favor of a term of incarceration.

¶7        We conclude the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it considered the Walworths’ statements at sentencing.  

Kathleen N. v. Brenda L. C., 2010AP2737, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brenda l.C.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Brenda isn’t entitled to a new TPR trial in the interests of justice, notwithstanding a line of inquiry that went to the respective financial capabilities of Brenda and her sister’s family (which sought the termination). “The evidence established that Brenda had last seen Samantha approximately six months prior to the hearing at a family gathering and had only spoken to Samantha at that event for a few minutes,