On Point

State v. Tammi Zellmer, 2010AP1986, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Zellmer: John D. Hyland; case activity

Probable cause to believe Zellmer was operating under the influence supported her arrest: she was speeding; the time, 2:50 a.m., was close to “bar time”; her eyes were glassy and bloodshot; she admitted to having drunk 2 beers and a mixed drink; her performance on field sobriety tests exhibited signs of intoxication.

State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2010AP1398-CR, rev. granted 10/25/11

on certification request (District 3/4); for Rowan: LaZotte, Paul G.; case activity

Issue (from Certification): 

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person, vehicle,

on review of summary order (District 2); for Negrete: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Plea Withdrawal – Collateral Attack – Deportation Consequences 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the laches doctrine bars Negrete’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, 18 years after he entered it.

2. Whether Negrete’s assertion that he didn’t know his plea exposed him to deportation entitles him to a hearing on his motion.

State v. John E. Ahern, 2011AP898, District 2, 10/26/11

court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Ahern: Dennis M. Melowski, Sarvan Singh; case activity

The officer had reasonable suspicion to “stop” Ahern’s vehicle for a noncriminal traffic violation, namely that the vehicle was parked in a roadway without affording other traffic sufficient room to drive around it.

¶10      At the time of the stop,

State v. Kenneth M. Davis, 2011 WI App 147 (recommended for publication); for Davis: Robert R. Henak; case activity; reissuance after prior decision withdrawn

Several items of testimony, coming to light after trial, directly contradict the trial testimony of the main State’s witnesses, leading the court to conclude that the real issue in controversy – Davis’s alleged involvement in a drug-house robbery and murder of an occupant –

State v. Toronee L. Kimbrough, 2010AP2676-CR, District 1, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Kimbrough: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Kimbrough’s challenge to sentence, as based on 3 instances of alleged inaccuracies:

1. the sentencing court’s reliance on the co-defendant’s statements as suggestive of Kimbrough’s own failure to accept responsibility for the crime (Kimbrough doesn’t meet his burden of showing erroneous attribution to him of the co-defendant’s statements,

State v. Altonio Laroy Chaney, 2011AP207-CR, District 1, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Chaney: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity; prior appeal: 2008AP395-CR

Chaney’s argument that an eyewitness had recanted his version of having seen Chaney sexually assault the victim didn’t satisfy the new factor test for sentence modification: the sentencing court didn’t focus on the claim that Chaney,

Outagamie County v. Lorna G., 2011AP1662, District 3, 10/25/11

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

Although the trial court’s reference to “potential” for harm was an “imprecise summary” of the §51.20(1)(a)2b test for commitment (“substantial probability of physical harm”), this articulation “was not a deviation from the” correct standard. Moreover, the trial court’s finding that Lorna G.

court of appeals certification; for Bryan Stanley: Kristin M. Kerschensteiner; case activity

Open Records – Sealed Court File – NGI Condition Release Plan 

The appeal raises two significant issues at the intersection of Wisconsin’s Open Records Law and Mental Health Act, one procedural and one substantive. The procedural issue involves the proper mechanism to pursue an open records request for documents that have been placed under seal by the circuit court.  

State v. Edward Beck, 2010AP872-CR, District 4, 10/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Circuit court is under no obligation to seek extension of the § 809.30(2) limitation period for its ruling on a postconviction motion.

¶6        Beck reads too much into the 2001 amendment to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(i).  The amendment simply added language to § 809.30(2)(i) specifying the entities that may request an extension,