On Point

State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh

Issue/Holding1: School grounds are extended to the school parking lot, so that the test for searches of students, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), applies to search of a student’s car parked in the lot, ¶¶15-19.

Issue/Holding2: Search of student’s car in school parking lot was reasonable:

¶21      In this case,

State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:

¶29      We will assume, for purposes of Patterson’s argument, that the definition of “juvenile” in Wis. Stat. § 938.02 applies for purposes of defining “delinquency” in Wis. Stat. § 948.40. Nonetheless, Patterson’s statutory analysis ignores the fact that a seventeen-year-old is only excepted from the definition of “juvenile” for a single purpose,

State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:

¶25      There is no dispute that testing revealed that Tanya S. had Oxycodone in her system at the relevant time. However, as Patterson argues, the presence of drugs in someone’s system, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. SeeState v.

State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09

For Wesley: Alvin Ugent

Issue/Holding:

¶24      Here, as we said, Wesley claims that he understood the term “dismissed outright” to mean that the State could never use the underlying facts against him. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. He also claims that, if the plea agreement was ambiguous,

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Notwithstanding “irregularities” with respect to the burden of proof, the hearing on Hoppe’s Bangert challenge established that his plea was knowing and voluntary, given “the circuit court’s findings … that the circuit court disbelieved the defendant’s claims that he did not receive and did not understand the information that was provided in the Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights Form but that was not provided to the defendant during the plea colloquy,” ¶¶46-58.

Clay Teasdale v. Marinette County Child Support Agency, 2009 WI App 152

Issue/Holding: Case specialist’s request to judge via affidavit and proposed order for remedial-contempt commitment was in fact if not form a “motion” and “was improper on numerous grounds”: it violated the §802.05(1) requirement that aside from pro se litigation motions must be signed by an attorney else must “be stricken”; it wasn’t filed with the clerk of circuit court,

Milton J. Christensen, et al. v. Sullivan, et al., 2009 WI 87, reversing 2008 WI App 18
For Christensen: Peter M. Koneazny, Patrick O. Patterson

Issue: Whether remedial contempt supports monetary sanction for past acts (here: intentional violations of jail-overcrowding consent decree) where the sanctionable conduct has terminated.

Holding: Remedial sanction, including monetary award, is limited to “continuing” contempt of court,

State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4
For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert

Issue/Holding: Secretly videotaping another without consent, though that person knowingly exposes herself nude to the video taper, supports criminal liability:

¶6        Jahnke contends that the facts do not support the third element, the expectation of privacy element. He reasons that his girlfriend had no reasonable expectation of privacy because she knowingly and consensually exposed her nude body to him while he was secretly videotaping her.

State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4
For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert

Issue/Holding:

¶5        Jahnke entered a plea to the recording crime defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1. That crime has four elements:

(1)        the defendant recorded a person in the nude;(2)        the recording is without the nude person’s knowledge and consent;

(3)        the depicted person was nude in a circumstance in which he or she had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”;

State v. James D. Lammers, 2009 WI App 136, PFR filed 9/16/09
For Lammers: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶12      “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 2001). Wisconsin Stat.