On Point

Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm

The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment.

¶7        …  First, Steven V. explained that its discussion of the use of summary judgment procedure on grounds proven by documentary evidence versus those proven by non-documentary evidence was not “mean[t] to imply that the general categorization of statutory grounds in this and the preceding paragraph represent a definitive statement about the propriety of summary judgment in any particular case.”  Id.

Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence.

¶16      Addressing first the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 48.422(7)(a),  the plain import of the requirement that the court “[a]ddress the parties present” is that the court engage in an on-the-record discussion,

State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2010 WI App 146 (recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 4; for Hanson: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Fleeing, § 346.04(3)

Can you criminally “flee” the police, if what you’re actually doing is driving to the nearest police station to escape what you believe to be a beating at the hands of the officer you’re fleeing?

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply

OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing

Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,

City of Kenosha v. Elizabeth R. Tower, 2009AP1957, District 2, 10/6/10  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tower: Michael F. Torphy; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Because the police knew Tower was merely stopped temporarily for the purpose of dropping of a passenger – an explicit statutory exception to illegal parking – they didn’t have reasonable suspicion to temporarily seize her for illegal parking:

¶10 The City argues that like the officers in Renz,

State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp.

Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed obtained the translation services of another officer at the time of arrest,

State v. Jason L. Sedahl, 2010AP1097-CR, District 3, 10/5/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sedahl: William A. Schembera; BiC; Resp.

The trial court erred in dismissing a pending charge on the theory that the charge (OWI) resulted from police failure to perform their community caretaker function (preventing him from driving):

¶12      …  No Wisconsin case holds that the doctrine places an affirmative duty on police to intercede and take a person into preventative detention prior to the commission of a crime. 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cortes: Timmothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply

State v. Rolando S. Cortes, 2010AP621-CR, Distric 3, 10/5/10

The officer had reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop:

¶7        Conley’s inference that Cortes was trying to elude or evade police was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.  Cortes pointed at Conley’s cruiser,

decision below: unpublished; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; court of appeals briefs: BiC; Resp.; Reply

Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):

Whether a defendant presented a new factor entitling sentence modification (See State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989).

Whether a defendant demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.

decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Burris: Byron C. Lichstein

Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):

Was the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction that was issued in response to a question from the jury and that quoted verbatim from a Supreme Court opinion an impermissibly misleading instruction under the standards established by State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis. 2d 183,