On Point

State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity

Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the vehicle for evidence relevant to the OWI arrest:

¶9        Here, it was reasonable for Kinservik to believe that further evidence related to Billips’ OWI arrest might be found in the vehicle.  

State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

¶18      “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,

State v. Rodney D. Johnson, 2010AP2470-CR, District 1, 10/4/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Richard L. Kaiser; case activity

Acting on a drug tip, police targeted Johnson, and saw him driving a car with a cracked windshield. After Johnson got out of the car, the officers approached, and “asked” to talk to him, but he walked away. The officers then “asked” him to take his hands out of his pocket,

State v. Brian K. Avery, 2011 WI App 148 (recommended for publication), supreme court review granted, 2/23/12; for Avery: Keith A. Findley; case activity; prior 974.06 appeal: 2008AP500-CR; direct appeal: 1997AP317

Newly Discovered Evidence – New Forensic  Method – Photogrammetric Analysis 

Expert photogrammetric opinion, derived from video enhancement technology (“VISAR”) not commercially available until after Avery’s trial,

Margaret Colgate Love, “Evolving Standards of Reasonableness: The ABA Standards and the Right to Counsel in Plea Negotiations” (“Padilla v. Kentucky underscores the defense bar’s stake in participating in the ABA standard-setting process to guide the development of their obligations in plea negotiations.”).

“Will Robots Steal Your Job? Software could kill lawyers. Why that’s good for everyone else.” (“The trouble is that the path from here to there will be rocky—many firms will be shuttered,

J. K. v. Mark Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (recommended for publication); case activity

Appellate Procedure – “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture” 

¶1 n. 1:

In using the term “waiver,” we are aware of the recently decided case of State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, where our supreme court clarified the distinction between the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver.”  See id.

Florence County Dept. of Human Services v. Jennifer B., 2011AP384, District 3/1, 9/29/11

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

Because the record doesn’t clearly establish whether Jennifer B. voluntarily terminated her rights, entered a no-contest plea, or made an admission to the allegations in the petition, a new TPR hearing is required. The trial court didn’t sufficiently inquire into matters required of a voluntary consent to terminate,

State v. Carlos G. Comas, 2010AP2687-CR, District 4, 9/29/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Comas: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although Comas was charged with § 948.025(1)(a), repeated sexual assault of the same child by acts of sexual intercourse, the case was in effect tried under § 948.025(1)(ar) ,which requires acts of sexual intercourse or contact. Comas received a confinement term of 25 years,

court of appeals publication orders, 9/28/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 123 DOC v. Warren Lilly, Jr.

2011 WI App 124 State v. Steven A. Avery

2011 WI App 125 State v. Paschall Lee Sanders

2011 WI App 127 State v. James G. Brereton

2011 WI App 129 State v.

on review of summary order (District 1); for Sutton: Colleen Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate;  case activity

No-Merit Appeal Procedure – Remand for Evidentiary Hearing

Issues: 

1. (Composed by On Point:) Whether § 809.32(1)(g) requires the court of appeals to remand a case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing where, during the course of a no-merit proceeding, an arguably meritorious claim for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel becomes apparent?