On Point

State v. Andrew C. Holder, 2011 WI App 116 (recommended for publication); for Holder: Edward D. Burke, Jr.; case activity

Although the penalty enhancement scheme  generally allows increased penalty for each prior OWI conviction, § 346.65(2)(am)5. provides that “convictions arising out of the same incident or occurrence shall be counted as one.” Nonetheless, Burke’s driving under the influence across the Michigan border,

Shelly J. v. Leslie W., 2011AP753, District 4, 7/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shelly J.:  Amy J. Lamerand Zott; case activity

Shelly’s motion to reopen her TPR judgment, 7 years after she successfully petitioned for voluntary termination, was untimely under the 1-year deadline imposed by § 806.07(1)(a) and (c), nor did she show “extraordinary circumstances” under subs. (h). As to her claim that the judgment was void under subs.

certification; for Rowan: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 10/25/11

Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights

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,

State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2011 WI App 118 (recommended for publication); for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; reversed, 2012 WI 64

Traffic Stop – No Turn Signal

Failure to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians are present doesn’t support a traffic stop:

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 346.34(1)(b) states that a driver must use a turn signal “[i]n the event that any other traffic may be affected.”  The circuit court found that Anagnos did not violate this statute when he made a left turn without using his signal,

State v. Jeremy M. Bootz, 2010AP2795-CR, District 2, 7/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bootz: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Counsel “had no obligation to object to” the testimony of “a bona fide rebuttal witness,” hence didn’t perform deficiently.

The court summarizes ground-rules relative to rebuttal witnesses, overarching principles being: “A bona fide rebuttal witness is a witness whose testimony only becomes necessary and appropriate after the defense presents its case-in-reply. 

State v. Edwin Clarence West, 2011 WI 83, affirming unpublished opinion; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity [Companion case: State v. Nordberg, 2011 WI 84 (same result, controlled by West).]

Someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4)(cg),

court of appeals publication orders, 7/26/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 100 Harlan Richards v. Alphonso Graham / Mark Heise

2011 WI App 102 State v. Alan Adin Randall

2011 WI App 104 State v. Deundra R. Lathan

2011 WI App 106 State v. Rodney a. Larson

2011 WI App 113 State v.

State v. Juan I. C., 2010AP3114, District 4, 7/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Juan I.C.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Credibility determination made by trial judge supported delinquency adjudication for theft of iPod that Juan borrowed but failed to return.

¶11      On the disputed issue of whether Juan repeatedly assured Max and JeVaughnte that he would either return the iPod or pay for it,

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of State v. Funk and State v. Denson, by the Honorable Richard J. Sankovitz, Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.

Trial judges monitor the flurry of end-of-term Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions for new rules of decision and new procedures to be followed in our courts. 

D’Ann K. v. Benjamin J. G., 2010AP1655, District 4, 7/20/11

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

With failure to assume parental responsibility as the ground for termination, Benjamin G. “argues that the court did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances test established in Tammy W-G. because it failed to consider Benjamin’s testimony that D’Ann [the guardian] failed to return his phone calls.”