by admin
on December 28, 2014
Racine County HSD v . Latasia D.M., 2014AP1672/1673, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The stand out in this multi-issue TPR case is whether the circuit court erred in denying Latasia’s permission to withdraw her jury demand. The court of appeals answered “no” because even though § 48.31(2) and §48.422(4) set forth the procedures for demanding a jury in a TPR case, the general civil procedure statute, § 805.01(3), governs the withdrawal of a jury demand. The latter statute requires the consent of all the parties, which Latasia did not have. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
State v. Timothy D. Russell, 2014AP451-CR, District 1, 12/23/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
When sentencing Russell for a series of thefts committed while he was deputy chief of staff to the Milwaukee County Executive, the circuit court referred to the charge to which Russell pled as “misconduct in public office, … not a theft as I think has been reported.” (¶8). The court of appeals holds that the sentencing transcript, when read as a whole, makes it clear that the circuit court did not erroneously believe it was sentencing Russell for the offense of misconduct in public office, but merely intended to note that Russell committed the offense of theft by virtue of his public position as deputy chief of staff to the Milwaukee County Executive.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
State v. John D. Harris, 2014AP1292-CR, District 1, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Harris isn’t entitled to a new trial based on alleged errors in the jury instruction for disorderly conduct, and the evidence is sufficient to support the guilty verdicts for that charge and a charge of battery.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
State v. Joseph S. Cali, 2014AP493-CR, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the recent decision in County of Grant v. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 356 Wis. 2d 343, 850 N.W.2d 253, the court of appeals holds that Cali wasn’t seized when a police officer, thinking Cali might be lost, pulled his squad car near Cali without activating his lights, got out and approached Cali, and from “normal talking distance” asked Cali “what was going on, if I could help him with anything.” (¶¶2-3).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
State v. Peter J. Long, 2014AP707-CR, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The police acted reasonably in stopping Long under an “attempt to locate” (ATL) that was based on information from identifiable persons as well as on Long’s own statements, and the officers’ manner in stopping him did not convert the stop into an arrest.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
State v. Cody J. Nolan, 2014AP1359-CR, District 3/4, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the red car Nolan was driving had been involved in a reportable accident and was leaving the scene or was assisting others in leaving the scene of a reportable accident in violation of § 346.70(1) or (1m)(b), as there was no evidence supporting a reasonable belief the alleged accident involved sufficient property damage to make it reportable under the statute.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
City of Chippewa Falls v. Douglas M. Buchli, 2014AP1422, District 3, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was probable cause to arrest Buchli for OWI despite the fact the police investigation discovered inconsistent information—including an admission by Buchli’s companion, Mahoney, that she was driving.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 27, 2014
City of Brookfield v. Cassandra L. Gissal, 2014AP1751-FT, District 2, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At trial Gissal challenged the admissibility of her statements to police because she wasn’t given Miranda warnings, but the trial court ruled she wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes. On appeal she abandons this claim and argues instead that allowing the officer to testify to her statements violated her Fifth Amendment privilege and that she wouldn’t have testified at trial if the officer had been barred from relating her statements. (¶¶5-7).
¶7 …. Aside from the fact that she cites absolutely no authority, and aside from the fact that she had lost her custodial interrogation challenge at trial—thus paving the way for the City to put in this testimony—and aside from the fact that she is wrong about the law, this is simply a new issue. The failure to have made this argument at trial forfeits her right to raise this issue now on appeal. State v. Caban, 210 Wis. 2d 597, 605-06, 563 N.W.2d 501 (1997). And although we may, in our discretion, decide to address an issue that has been forfeited, this court will not do so here because the issue, so far as it is understood by this court, has no merit.
{ }
