On Point

on petition for review of published decision; for Hanson: Robert R. Henak, Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Whether a driver of a vehicle can be convicted of attempting to elude a law enforcement officer under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3) while on a cell phone with a 911 intake dispatcher and driving to a police station.

Whether an officer is a “victim” (See State v.

Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2011 WI 6, affirming unpublished decision; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶3   Given that a finding of parental unfitness does not necessarily result in an involuntary termination of parental rights, we determine that the circuit court was not obligated to inform Brenda that by pleading no contest she was waiving her constitutional right to parent. 

district court decision, denying respondent’s motion to amend judgment granting habeas relief (post on original grant, here).

Habeas – State’s Waiver

The State’s failure to raise certain arguments, prior to grant of 2254 relief, waived its right to press those points on a Rule 59 motion to amend the judgment granting relief.

The respondent in this case, like in most petitions for a writ of habeas corpus,

Koch v. Neumann, 2010AP1531, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The contemnor argues that a remedial sanction (30 days’ jail, stayed for 1 year conditioned on no further violations of prior judgment) imposed by the trial court was unsupported because the contemptuous conduct had already terminated. Although remedial sanctions are permissible only for continuing contempt,

County of Sheboygan v. William M. Lane, 2010AP1756, District 2, 2/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lane: George Limbeck; case activity; State BiC; Lane Resp.

¶6        As a threshold matter, the County addresses the proper test for assessing the validity of the traffic stop.  The County contends that the appropriate standard is “reasonable suspicion” as opposed to “probable cause.”  We disagree. 

Portage Co. HHS v. Jesus S., 2010AP2698, District 4, 2/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesus S.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

For a no-contest plea to a TPR petition to be knowing and voluntary, the parent must be notified of the direct consequences of his or her plea, including an automatic finding of parental unfitness, ¶6, citing Oneida Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs.

State v. Robert L. Stokes, 2009AP919-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Stokes: John M. Bolger; case activity; Stokes BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Given trial court credibility findings, the resident’s consent to the police to enter and search was voluntary.

¶19      Finally, we are not convinced by Robert’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion regardless of whether Deborah’s consent was valid because police had no lawful reason to be in the Stokes’ yard and on their porch.  

State v. Darrell Lemont Otis, 2010AP589, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Otis: Bryan C. Lichstein; case activity; Otis BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Repeated Sexual Assault – Sufficiency of Evidence

Repeated sexual assault, § 948.025(1)(b), requires proof of 3 elements: 3 or more sexual assaults; within a specified period of time;

State v. Jimmie Lee Higgins, 2010AP861-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

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

Any error with respect to exclusion of the victim’s pretrial statement to the police in one instance, and admissibility of her statements to a nurse, would be harmless.

State v. Lee Alexander Brown, 2010AP970, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Russell D. Bohach; case activity; Brown BiC; State Resp.

The court holds that Brown knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at trial on his sexually violent person petition.  Although there is a question as to whether the right to counsel under the 6th amendment and Art.