Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2017AP1416, 10/31/18, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hinkle, a 16-year-old boy, was charged as a juvenile in two different counties for a car theft and police chase.  In Milwaukee County, the juvenile court waived him into adult court. So, did the Fond du Lac court have to treat him as an adult too? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Steven D. Palmersheim, 2018AP746, 10/31/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is the state’s appeal of the circuit court’s grant of a suppression motion. A motorist called the police saying another car on the road was wildly swerving; the caller stayed with the swerving vehicle until it stopped on a residential street. When a police officer arrived in response to the car, the caller told him the driver, Palmersheim, had gotten out of the car and urinated in the street. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Deshawn Harold Jewell, 2017AP2503-CR, 10/30/18. District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Jewell claims that he is innocent of armed robbery, so his identity was an issue at trial. During deliberations,  the jury asked the trial court for the “six pack” of pictures of people who appeared in the police photo array that the victim used to identify him. They also asked a question about how the photos were numbered. Jewell and his lawyer were not present and had no input into the answer. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Damien Farold Robinson, 2018AP259-CR, District 1, 10/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Robinson challenges some of the restitution ordered to reimburse two burglary victims for repairing the damage caused by Robinson’s forcible entry. The court rejects his arguments that there was insufficient evidence about the costs of repair and the reasonableness of the costs. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. John P. Bougneit, 2018AP74, 10/24/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Bougneit of fourth-degree sexual assault; he allegedly nonconsensually fondled an 18-year-old woman under a blanket while he, the woman, and his wife were watching a movie together at their house. The wife testified for Bougneit and the state sought to damage her credibility by calling attention to her professed recall–in a statement to police and on the stand–of various seemingly minor details of the evening.  Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Nicholas C. Wegner, 2017AP2236-CR, District 2, 10/23/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer testified he was proceeding through a traffic roundabout when Wegner, ignoring the yield signs posted for vehicles entering the roundabout, entered directly in front of the officer and caused the officer to have to brake to avoid hitting Wegner. (¶4). This conduct justified the officer’s stop of Wegner. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. M.G., 2018AP835, 10/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.G. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, M.W. He stipulated to unfitness on the ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). On appeal, he contends the circuit court erroneously imported the required finding for this ground–that he lacked a “substantial parental relationship” with the child–into the third factor of the disposition phase, which concerns only “substantial relationship(s)” between the child and M.G. or others in his family. See Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c). Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }