On Point

publication orders, 4/26/10

2008AP001763 CR 2010 WI App 47 State v. Benjamin W. Mercer

2008AP002980 CR 2010 WI App 48 State v. Karon M. Asmus

2008AP002981 CR 2010 WI App 48 State v. Karon M. Asmus

2009AP000140 CR 2010 WI App 49 State v. Clifford D. Bvocik

2009AP000371 2010 WI App 50 Keith J. Johnson v. Washburn County

2009AP000385 CR 2010 WI App 51 State v.

Questions Presented:

May a party appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits if the party chose not to appeal the order before trial?

SCOTUS docket: here. Scotusblog, briefs: here.

This have anything to do with SPD-related practice? Not really, strictly speaking. But, isn’t the problem at least somewhat reminiscent of the recurrent one based in State v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Controlled Substance – Prescribed by Out-of-State Doctor
Possession of marijuana, prescribed by California doctor under laws of that state, may be prosecuted in Wisconsin: though an exception exists for possession obtained by prescription from a “practitioner,” § 961.41(3g), the practitioner must be licensed in Wisconsin, § 961.01(19)(a). ¶10.

Well, the court’s conclusion might be grammatically sound,

Questions Presented:

California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industry groups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski

IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Knapp: David M. Helmke; BiC; Resp.

Harmless Error – Prior Conviction
Inadmissible testimony suggestive of a prior conviction (Knapp’s statement upon arrest “that he was going to jail again”) was non-prejudicial: Knapp himself testified he had a prior conviction and nothing in the inadmissible testimony indicated the nature of the prior.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”

court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Grounds

We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights. 

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Luckett: Cheryl A. Ward; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Extended Supervision Conditions
ES condition barring Luckett from residing”with any person in any place in which children or women reside [without] Court’s permission” neither unreasonable nor unconstitutionally overbroad.

The court of appeals stresses that Luckett’s history “demonstrates domestic violence”; indeed, the immediate crime is itself DV-related.

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Evans: George Tauscheck; BiC: Resp.; Reply

Testimony from 4 (of a total of 9) false imprisonment victims wasn’t necessary to sustain the convictions on those counts:

… (A) reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence that Nathan B., Nicholas B., Nigel B. and Rashod H. did not consent to being restrained by Evans.