State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2021 WI 42, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2020 WI App 33, 5/14/21, case activity (including briefs)
Section 801.58(1) allows a party to a civil case to request a new judge if, among other things, he files a written substitution request before “the hearing of any preliminary contested matter.” Matthews’ case concerns a substitution request made after the circuit court granted a motion to adjourn a Chapter 980 probable cause hearing regarding sexually violent persons. But since Chapter 980 commitments are civil proceedings, this unanimous SCOW opinion, which reverses a published court of appeals’ opinion, is an important clarification of the law governing all civil cases. [continue reading…]
{ }
Lawyers who defend immigrants might be interested in a bi-weekly newsletter by Tim Muth at the ACLU of Wisconsin. It’s called Wisconsin Immigration Focus. It covers everything from local marches to Wisconsin law enforcement’s collaboration with ICE, to the medical neglect of immigrants at Wisconsin Detention Centers. Check out the newsletter archive and subscribe to updates here.
{ }
State v. John R. Anker, 2020AP1218-CR, District 4, 5/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The officer who stopped Anker because his car was missing a license plate had sufficient reason to extend the stop by asking Anker to do field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
{ }
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. S.K., 2021AP158, District 2, 5/12/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Though § 48.424(4) says that if grounds for termination of parental rights are found, “the court shall find the parent unfit,” the circuit court’s failure to utter those words doesn’t make the TPR order invalid. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); PfR granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Police lawfully entered Wilson’s backyard under the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. G.R.H., 2020AP1638, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A juvenile adjudged delinquent for certain sex offenses must register as a sex offender unless the court permanently stays the requirement under the standards established in §§ 301.45(1m)(e) and 938.34(15m) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1. The circuit court in this case properly applied those standards when it declined to stay the registration requirement for G.R.H. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. War Nakula-Reginald Marion, 2019AP2206-CR & 2019AP2207-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Marion was given maximum consecutive sentences on multiple misdemeanor convictions, all consecutive to the reconfinement ordered after his ES in a prior case was revoked due to the new convictions. Appointed postconviction counsel filed a no-merit appeal under § 809.32 and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. Before and during the no-merit appeal, Marion filed a number of pro se motions challenging his sentences, among other things. This appeal involves a recent motion for “Time Served with Concurrent Sentences.” The court holds the motion is procedurally barred because it raises the same or substantially similar issues raised in prior pro se motions, State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and because his convictions were affirmed in the no-merit appeal, State v. Allen, 2010 WI 89, 328 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 124. To the extent Marion is aggrieved by the computation of his sentence, he must raise the issue with DOC or by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
{ }
Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, 5/12/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted, 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 40; case activity
For more than a year now, Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, has required circuit courts imposing ch. 51 commitments to identify which statutory form of dangerousness has been proved. A little over a month ago, the court of appeals decided Rock Co. DHS v. J.E.B., holding the circuit court failed to satisfy this requirement. But the appellate court didn’t undo the commitment: it just remanded for the circuit court to decide whether the facts satisfied any of the five standards. It did this even as it declined to address J.E.B.’s other challenge: that there was insufficient evidence of any form of dangerousness. This latter claim would have required dismissal of the petition. Is the court of appeals free to refuse to consider a litigant’s claim–a claim that would that would dispose of the entire case–for no other reason than that it is granting some lesser relief? [continue reading…]
{ }
