State v. Steven Ray Gaddis, 2015AP130-CR, District 1, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even the sentencing judge admitted his sentencing explanation “could have been more extensive” (¶10). But, hey, it was good enough for government work. [continue reading…]
State v. Ali H., 2015AP41, District 1, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Though the juvenile court judge “was perhaps imprecise with its language,” the court of appeals concludes the judge did not erroneously apply adult sentencing considerations of punishment and deterrence when it decided to order Ali placed at Lincoln Hills. [continue reading…]
State v. David D. Hartl, Jr., 2014AP2921-CR, District 3, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
In this OWI case, trial counsel moved to exclude reference to the 911 call about a possible drunk driver, which is what led to police to look for Hartl’s car and ultimately stop him. The state stipulated to excluding this evidence. But on cross-examination of the officer, trial counsel asked questions that led to the officer referring to the call. (¶¶4-5). Hartl argues his lawyer was ineffective for doing this. (¶¶12-14). While it would be “difficult to conclude” trial counsel wasn’t deficient (¶16), it is easy to conclude there was no prejudice. [continue reading…]
Derrick P. v. Anita P., 2014AP2570 & 2014AP2571, District 4, 7/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Anita P. raised equal protection and due process challenges to § 48.415(4)(a) for the first time on appeal, and the court of appeals finds it’s not in the interest of justice to decide the challenges. We describe the issues in more detail below, since practitioners handling TPR cases arising out of placement denials in family court may want to consider raising them (in the trial court first, of course). [continue reading…]
Dear readers: On Point will be in “maintenance mode” for the new few weeks so that we can do some updating and redesigning. We’ll let you know when it is back up. Don’t worry. You won’t miss anything. Posts on cases issued during the hiatus will be waiting for you when On Point returns. See you soon!
The Original Court of Appeals. Top L-R: Patrick Donlin, John Foley, William Moser, Harold Bode, Richard Brown, Martha Bablitch, and Charles Dykman. Bottom L-R: Robert Dean, Robert Cannon, John Decker, Clair Voss, and Paul Gartzke
Richard Brown, one of the original judges elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 1978, retires this week. Thirty-seven years of judging translates into some pretty impressive statistics. According to a Westlaw Reference Attorney, Judge Brown appears in their database as the member of a panel on 6,511 opinions (and that doesn’t count one-judge opinions). The court of appeals’ database (which only goes back to 1992) shows him associated with a staggering 9,393 written decisions. And staff attorney tallies show that he authored 965 three-judge opinions and 617 one-judge opinions since 1982. No one has dared to count the number of appellate briefs he has read. Because he is the longest-serving judge on the court of appeals (and started at age 32), it seems doubtful that colleagues will break his records any time soon. [continue reading…]
Last December then Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote a concurrence to State v. Gonzalez, which publicized SCOW’s new procedures and deadlines for drafting, circulating, and issuing opinions. Abrahamson criticized the procedures partly because SCOW adopted them in private and partly because they eliminated the conferences where justices discussed their draft opinions and their thoughts about writing a concurrence or dissent. On Point reported the development here. With last week’s John Doe decisions, the 2014-2015 term ended. That means it’s possible to determine whether the new procedures have made a difference. See for yourself on today’s edition of SCOWstats.
Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.
