Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Terry Stop
City of Mequon v. Monica Maureen Cooley, 2010AP2142, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cooley: Dudley A. Williams; case activity
Reasonable suspicion supported early-morning stop of car in otherwise empty parking lot.
¶7 We agree with the circuit court that Brandemuehl conducted a lawful Terry stop. Brandemuehl could point to specific and articulable facts[3] (Cooley turning into the parking lot of a closed movie theatre early on New Year’s morning),
Ch. 51 Recommitment – “if treatment were withdrawn” test explained and met here
Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.
¶8 Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.
TPR – Grounds
Walworth County DH&HS v. Andrea O., 2010AP2938, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Andrea O.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence supported jury verdict on abandonment as to grounds for terminating parental rights, as against claim of good cause (incarceration) for conceded failure to communicate with the child.
¶8 The record reflects that Andrea may have sent a letter to her caseworker,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Voluntary Intoxication; Ineffective Assistance – State’s Closing Argument
State v. Richard L. Daniels, 2010AP1715-CR, District 3, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Daniels: John M. Carroll; case activity
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication requires that the defendant establish utter lack of capability to form the requisite intent; because Daniels’ version couldn’t make this showing, counsel’s failure to pursue the defense wasn’t deficient performance.
¶12 It was reasonable for Daniels’ trial counsel to view Daniels’ version of events as inconsistent with a voluntary intoxication defense,
Evidence – Other-Acts – “Sullivan” Analysis; Prosecutorial Misconduct
State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2011 WI 12, reversing unpublished decision; case activity; prior post; for Marinez: Ralph J. Sczygelski
Evidence – Other-Acts, § 904.04(2) – “Sullivan” Analysis
¶19 To guide courts in determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible for a proper purpose under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(a), we developed a three-prong test. Sullivan,
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability; § 806.07 Motion to Vacate
Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree, 2011 WI 10, reversing 2009 WI App 103; case activity
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability
A circuit court order rejecting state indemnification of an employee being sued was non-final and thus absorbed in the final judgment later entered as to liability and damages.
¶62 An appeal may be taken as a matter of right only from a final judgment or a final order.
Stephen Toliver v. McCaughtry, E.D. Wis. No. 02-C-1123
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,
Chs. 51 / 55 – Placement at Mendota
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, 2/11
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.
Briefing – Nomenclature
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
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 –
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.