On Point

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gasper: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; case activity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

State v. Burt Terrell Johnson, Jr., 2010AP2654-CR, District 1, 9/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Sara Heinemann Roemaat; case activity

Counsel did not perform deficiently.

1. Decision not to make opening statement was reasonable strategy, given that the defense didn’t plan to call any witnesses but instead intended “to put the State to its proof,” ¶21.
2. Failure to object to State’s closing argument characterizing what the victim “saw”

State v. Guadalupe Jose Rivas, 2010AP2777-CR, District 1, 9/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rivas: George Tauscheck; case activity

¶5        Rivas argues that four instances of inaccurate information mentioned by the trial court at his sentencing require resentencing:  (1) the trial court believed that Rivas had five prior felonies when he had only four; (2) the trial court mischaracterized Rivas as a drug dealer;

Managed Health Services Insurance Corp. v. Wisconsin DHS, 2010AP2551, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication ); case activity

Managed Health’s appeal related to contract procurement is dismissed as moot; because of failure to seek a stay of the trial court’s order allowing the process to continue, the contracts have already been let, and therefore even if Managed Health were to prevail, no remedy could be awarded.

Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.

¶15      The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,

State v. Carl Mills, 2010AP1746-CR, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Mills: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Trail counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions and verdict forms with respect to unanimity on multiple counts of sexual assault of a single victim, even though the verdict forms did not specify the types of sexual intercourse involved; 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Linssen: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

Sentence Review – Harsh & Excessive 

Sentence to maximum term of confinement for felony theft and forgery wasn’t harsh and excessive, notwithstanding lack of prior criminal record.

¶23      Linssen has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing court relied on improper factors, see Harris,

State v. Andrew W. Rosenthal, 2011AP828-CR, District 3, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rosenthal: Erica L. Bauer; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car, at 2:30 a.m., in isolated area which was site of frequent break-ins; State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 47, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997), distinguished:

¶14      Here, conversely, we conclude that Rosenthal’s conduct does not describe the conduct of a large number of innocent persons.  

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

State v. Lakesha M., 2011AP1280, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lakesha M.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Termination of parental rights affirmed, court rejecting argument that procedural requirements of §§ 48.422(8) & 48.422(9)(a) (where petition not brought by agency, court “shall” order parent to provide certain information) violated:

¶5        The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did not file the petitions here.