On Point

State v. David G. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65, affirming summary order
For Straszkowski Philip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses, ¶36; id n. 20:

State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶45, 253 Wis.  2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341. See also State v. McQuay , 154 Wis. 2d 116,

Wright v. Joseph L. Van Patten,552 US 120 (2008)
Prior history: Joseph Van Patten v. Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006), reinstated, 489 F. 3d 827, 2007, on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. ___ (2006); on habeas review of,

State v. Pablo Ruiz-Velez, 2008 WI App 169
For Ruiz-Velez: Melnda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether audiovisual recordings of statements made by alleged victims and admitted into evidence under § 908.08(1) must be transcribed by the official court reporter.

Holding:

¶4        Wisconsin Stat. Rule 885.42(4) provides: “At trial, videotape depositions and other testimony presented by videotape shall be reported.” As we have seen,

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

TPR – Elements, Ground of Continuing Need of Protection and Services, Generally

Issue/Holding:

¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice.

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published)

Issue/Holding: A deported father’s participation in the TPR proceeding by a webcam system was “meaningful,” given that he could see and hear witnesses, be seen by the court, and communicate privately with counsel and with aid of an interpreter, ¶¶10-19.

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 (telephone hookup not functional equivalent of personal presence,

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

Issue/Holding: Stipulation to a TPR elements did not constitute withdrawal of the demand for a jury trial, where the element was submitted to, and found by, the jury under the instructions and special verdict form, ¶¶18-24.

The court approvingly analogizes to State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct.

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

Issue/Holding:

¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice. Second, the County Department of Social Services must have made a reasonable effort to provide services ordered by the court.

Manitowoc County HSD v. Allen J., 2008 WI App 137

Issue/Holding:

¶1 Allen J. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Brandon [1] and Stephanie J. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial because the court, rather than the jury, answered one of the verdict questions on an element of parental unfitness. Allen’s counsel had stipulated that the element was satisfied,

Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159

Grounds

Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a):

¶16      Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to the disposition and then will either terminate the parent’s rights or dismiss the petition if the evidence does not warrant termination.

Donald Calloway v. Montgomery, 512 F. 3d 940, No. 07-1148, 1/14/08

Issue/Holding: Where the Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the issue (or on one in a very similar) context) to the issue on habeas review, there is no clearly established precedent within the meaning of AEDPA.

Andrew Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721 (7th Cir 2006) (challenge to lack of knowledge of mandatory additional term of supervised release not cognizable) followed.