On Point

State v. Robert A. Tomaszewski, 2010 WI App 51; for Tomazewski: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

¶6 n. 3:

Tomaszewski argues this is not a case in which reasonable suspicion that he was violating a traffic law would justify the stop. In Tomaszewski’s view, a temporary detention may be justified by reasonable suspicion only where an officer cannot determine,

State v. Karon M. Asmus, 2010 WI App 48; for Asmus: Donald C. Dudley

Interstate Detainer Act claim is waived by guilty plea:

¶3        A guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶18, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886. This rule applies even though the defendant attempts to preserve an issue by raising it in the circuit court. 

7th Circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Procedural Bar
Smith defaulted one claim by failing to raise it “in a full round of appellate review” in state court (i.e., he failed to include the issue in his request for Illinois supreme court review). He is unable to overcome the resultant bar on habeas review, on a cause-and-prejudice analysis. Among other things, the claim (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a witness ID instruction) would likely fail on the merits because counsel didn’t act in an objectively unreasonable manner by failing to object to a pattern instruction.

7th circuit court of appeals decision; habeas review of: Wis court of appeals decision, 03AP3252

Habeas – Supplement Record

… Although we generally decline to supplement the record on appeal with materials not before the district court, we have not applied this position categorically. See, e.g., Ruvalcaba v. Chandler, 416 F.3d 555, 562 n.2 (7th Cir. 2005) (in habeas case,

State v. James W. Smith, 2010 WI 16, affirming 2009 WI App 16; for Smith: Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

The § 301.45 reporting requirement applicable to any violation of false imprisonment of a minor not the defendant’s child is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in protecting the public, particularly children, ¶¶27-36.

Keep in mind that Smith challenged the statute as applied to him.

Wisconsin supreme court decision; below: certification; for Wood: Kristin E. Lehker; for amicus, Disability Rights Watch: Kristin Kerschensteiner; Supp. App. Br.; Supp. Resp.; Supp. Reply

¶13      A party may challenge a law or government action as being unconstitutional on its face.  Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that the law cannot be enforced “under any circumstances.” 

Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.

Holding:

¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

SVP – Evidence
1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support new trial in the interest of justice,

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Reversed, 2011 WI 12

Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct – “Context”
On trial for sexual assault of defendant’s young stepdaughter, evidence that defendant also burned her hand was not admissible to show the “context” of the alleged crime.

¶15      Here,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James M.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Voluntariness of Plea

¶24      Because Wisconsin statutory law does not permit a court to terminate parental rights upon a finding of unfitness without completing the dispositional phase, we see no rationale for requiring a court to inform a parent that a finding of unfitness results in the automatic loss of the constitutional right to parent.