On Point

district court decision, granting habeas relief on review of unpublished Wis COA opinion (2000AP-2460-CR); on remand from Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2008) 

for Toliver: Brian P. Mullins; Toliver BiC; Wis. Resp.; Reply

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance

Counsel performed deficiently in failing to call two potential witnesses who would have supported Toliver’s theory of defense that,

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”

court of appeals publication orders, 2/16/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 21 State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr.

2011 WI App 22 State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr.

2011 WI App 25 State v. Demetrius M. Boyd

2011 WI App 26 Heather B. v. Jennifer B.

Donna J. Murr v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, 2008AP2728, District 3, 2/15/11

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

¶18 n. 11:

The Board’s response brief repeatedly refers to Murr as plaintiff.  We remind counsel that references should be to names, not party designations.  See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(i).

Surpassingly minor point? Sure –

State v. Kenneth R. Parrish, 2010AP809, District 1, 2/15/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Parrish: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Parrish BiC; State Resp.; Reply

SVP – Petition for Discharge – Request for Independent Examiner

Parrish’s failure to unequivocally request appointment of an independent examiner dooms his argument on appeal that the trial court “prematurely dismissed his petition for discharge (§ 980.09) without first appointing an examiner,

State v. Janet A. Conner, 2011 WI 8, affirming 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Stephen E. Mays; case activity; Conner BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Stalking, § 940.32 – Notice of Charge, “Course of Conduct”

Stalking requires proof of, among other elements, a “course of conduct” which “means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time,

State v. Abigail W., 2010AP2792, District 1, 2/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Abigail W.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

TPR – Condition of Return

CHIPS condition that parent “show that you can care for and supervise your child properly and that you understand [her] special needs” wasn’t an impossible condition but, rather, was narrowly tailored to meet compelling State interest in protecting child’s safety,

Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District, 2011 WI App 31; case activity

¶7 n. 3:

Northwood cites a circuit court decision from another case as persuasive authority, correctly noting that such a citation does not violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3), which prohibits citing unpublished appellate cases decided before July 1, 2009.  However, Northwood then emphasizes we affirmed the circuit court, provides citation to the 2005 unpublished appellate court decision,

court of appeals decision; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether a trial judge has a sua sponte duty to strike a prosepctive juror who is an in-law of the judge.

Whether defense counsel’s use of a peremptory strike to remove the judge’s in-law renders harmless any error in the judge’s failure to remove that juror.

See prior post for further discussion.

on certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether a statement made to law enforcement following a probationer’s honest accounting to his probation agent may derive from a “legitimate source wholly independent of compelled testimony” and therefore admissible in a criminal case, notwithstanding the promise of immunity for such statements when made to probation agents.

See prior post for further discussion.