On Point

State v. Jaquita B., 2010AP1215, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jacquita B.: Jane S. Earle

Termination of Jaquita’s parental rights to her two children upheld, where the record shows the trial court properly considered: the children’s likelihood of adoption; permanency of a sustaining care contract in preference to guardianship;  Jaquita’s failure to offer stability to the children; and the11-year-old’s desire to return to Jaquita (the last rejected as not in the best if either child because it would lead to their separation form each other).

State v. Randall L. Wegener, 2010AP452-CR, District 1, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wegener: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop

Inclement winter weather didn’t obviate the need to stay within the proper lane, such that crossing the center line, even briefly a few times, provided reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop.

¶6        Wegener argues that Fabry did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop because he was driving appropriately for part of the time he was followed and blames his lack of control of his vehicle on the snowy weather conditions.

Ozaukee Co. HSD v. Sarah H., 2010AP416, District 2, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sarah H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

A CHIPS dispositional order placing a child with a local department and requiring that services be provided to child and family satisfies Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55:

¶5        … What this comes down to is an argument that the dispositional order must contain a magical phrase—“supervision,

State v. Sabian L. Yunck, 2009AP3020-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Yunck: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Sentence – Factors – Exercise of Constitutional Right

Convicted of violating a domestic abuse order forbidding contact with the mother of his child, Yunck argues that sentence was impermissibly based on his exercise of a constitutional right,

State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best evidence rule, § 910.02.

¶11 Although the best evidence rule generally requires an original recording to be played in court in order to prove the content of the recording,

State v. Robert Wendt, 2010AP75-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable suspicion supported temporary stop of driver of truck idling at 1:30 a.m. behind business in winter with it snow plow up.

¶16 Here, there were “specific and articulable facts,” as set forth by Sergeant Paul during her testimony,

State v. William Webber, 2010AP9-CR, District 3, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Webber: Chris A. Gramstrup; BiC; Resp.

On charges of 4th degree sexual assault and obstructing, the sentencing court properly considered, as both aggravating and mitigating, Webber’s 30-year history as a law enforcement officer, as well as his nonconsensual videotaping of his ex-wife.

State v. Timothy Ray Anderson, 2009AP2416-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Jeremy C. Perri; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Anderson’s postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, on the ground he didn’t understand that a charge “dismissed outright” could nonetheless be considered at sentencing, was properly denied without hearing. The circuit expressly denied that the dismissed charge was factored into the sentence,

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling

Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely.

The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different and should yield a different conclusion. First, the obvious: subject to highly exceptional circumstances,

State v. Steve J. Will, 2010AP723-CR, District 4, 8/12/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Will: Mark Eisenberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable suspicion to stop Will’s truck is supported under the multi-factor test of State v. Guzy, 139 Wis. 2d 663, 407 N.W.2d 548 (1987): while authorities were monitoring a marijuana field an alarm was set off,