On Point

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Counsel – Appeal 

When a defendant in a criminal case specifically instructs a lawyer to file a notice of appeal, the lawyer’s failure to do so deprives the defendant of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, regardless of whether an appeal was likely to succeed. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000); Peguero v. United States,

State v. Jason D. Spears, 2011AP934-CR, District 1, 9/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Spears: Kyle S. Conway; case activity

Trial court’s failure to explain rationale for sentence violated State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶44-49, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, and requires remand for resentencing.

¶11      Here, the circuit court did not explain how Spears’s criminal history impacted its sentencing decision,

State v. Aaron Deal, 2010AP1804-CR, District 1, 9/20/11 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Deal: James A. Rebholz; case activity

Counsel’s refusal to argue to the jury that it should return a guilty verdict on felony murder, submitted as a lesser offense option of first-degree intentional homicide, wasn’t deficient in light of the defendant’s insistence on an all-or-nothing strategy.

¶8        At the Machner hearing,

State v. Dennis D. Lemoine, 2010AP2597-CR, District 4, 9/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lemoine: Donna L. Hintze, Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; supreme court review granted, 1/25/12

¶18      We agree with the trial court that the balance of the defendant’s personal characteristics against the tactics used by the police renders this is a “close case.”  However,

State v. James T. Kettner, 2011 WI App 142 (recommended for publication); for Kettner: Andrew R. Hinkel, Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Hearing-Impaired Juror – Inability to Hear Certain Testimony 

A juror’s inability to hear most of alleged victim S.K.’s answers in a videotaped interview didn’t violate Kettner’s rights to impartial jury or due process, given that S.K. also testified in person consistent with her videotaped answers. 

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of Wis. COA No. 2008AP1533-CR; prior history: 2001AP713-CR, 1995AP1856-CR

Habeas – Exculpatory Evidence – Available to Defendant

Jardine argues that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence, namely that post-conviction testing of the gun he admittedly possessed but denied using to club the victim didn’t reveal the presence of the victim’s DNA.

on review of unpublished decision; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate;  case activity

Juvenile Delinquency – Waiver Investigation Hearing

Issue (Composed by On Point): 

Whether, on petition to waive a juvenile into adult court, the State may give ex parte input to a local agency making the waiver recommendation pursuant to the circuit court’s request under § 939.18(2m).

The State filed a waiver petition;

State v. Ricky O. Halverson, 2011AP240-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Halverson: Walter R. Andrew; case activity

Officer, whose investigation of single-car crash led him to Halverson’s home, wasn’t properly engaged in community caretaker exercise when he took Halverson into custody, supposedly for his own good, ¶¶8-14. Community caretaker test, State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14,

City of Sheboygan Falls v. John D. Prinsen, 2011AP700, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Prinsen: Kirk B. Obear, Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Probable cause supported stop for driving wrong way on highway, based on information provided ion a 911 call; State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, applied:

¶11      The Rutzinski standard is met in this case.  

State v. Stuart J. Gasper, 2010AP1973-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gasper: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; case activity

On a trial for hit-and-run and OWI, evidence that just before the charged events, the defendant’s car struck another car, was not “other acts” evidence within § 904.04(2) but, rather, was admissible to show “context”:

¶13      At the postconviction motion hearing,