On Point

On Point honors the memory of Judge Evans with tributes from local admirers. At the same time, we are mindful that his graceful, inimitable writings are his greatest legacy, as can quickly be seen from this short sample. Additional tributes will be posted as they come in. This post will be kept at the top of the site this week. Scroll down for new case summaries. Journal-Sentinel obituary. 

State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2010AP1599-CR, District 4, 8/11/11, affirmed, 2012 WI 68

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 68; case activity

If, during a (non-Alford) guilty plea colloquy, the defendant denies the existence of an element of the charged the offense, the court must refuse to accept the plea:

¶28      However,

State v. Jonathan M. Reynolds, 2011AP512-CR, District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reynolds: Steven Cohen; case activity

Reynolds collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction (on the ground waiver of counsel was ineffectual because he didn’t know the potential range of penalties) is rejected. Basic procedure discussed and applied, ¶8.

¶11      Reynolds testified that although he received a copy of the complaint,

Dane Co. DHS v. Porfirio O. / Minerva L., 2011AP1247 et al., District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porfirio O.: Dennis Schertz; for Minvera L.: Steven Zaleski; case activity (Porfirio); case activity (Minerva)

The parents did not meet their burden of showing factual dispute as to whether their incarceration was the sole reason they were unable to meet conditions for return of the children under CHIPS orders,

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, ¶10, 307 Wis. 2d 372,

State v. James G. Brereton, 2011 WI App 127 (recommended for publication); for Brereton: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

After lawfully stopping Brereton, the police removed him from his car, towed it to a lot and then, after obtaining a warrant, attached a GPS tracking device. Ensuing monitoring led to information connecting Brereton to a crime. The court holds as follows:

• Fourth amendment concerns are implicated because the tracking device was placed inside the hood while the vehicle was in police possession and out of public view,¶8,

State v. James R. Dobie, 2011AP399-CR, District 3, 8/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dobie: Curt Fisher; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain DC guilty verdict, based on Dobie biting his girlfriend’s (Ronek) arm. Although Ronek testified and denied that Dobie bit her, observations of officers responding to a disturbance call supplied proof of guilt:

¶10      We conclude the evidence presented at trial sufficiently supports Dobie’s disorderly conduct conviction.  

seventh circuit decision

Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Prison Inmates, Denial of Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder

Section 302.386(5m) (2010), which categorically bars hormonal therapy or sexual reassignment surgery to prison inmates, violates the 8th amendment.

“Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they display ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’ ” Greeno v. Daley,

“A courtroom is a dynamic thing that changes with the mood of the participants, the types of cases on the calendar, the weather outside, the witnesses who appear, and what the drive to the courthouse was like.” Not to be confused with “It’s Alive,” the post does contain decent advice, rhetorical excess notwithstanding. “Then again, sometimes excessive figures of speech can be delightful.”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

 Under § 2253(c)(2) of Title 28, “[a] certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has observed that an applicant has made a “substantial showing” where “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v.