by admin
on September 20, 2020
State v. James Timothy Genous, 2019AP435, review of a per curiam court of appeals decision granted 9/16/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented:
Do the following facts contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity: a brief encounter in a car between two or more people, an officer’s belief that one or more of those people is a known drug user, the time of day or night, and the car’s headlights turning off right before the encounter and turning back on right afterward?
The issue presented tells you everything you need to know about this one. In the court of appeals, the state said publication wasn’t even merited because the case required only the application of established legal principles to a particular set of facts. But then the court of appeals went and applied those principles in a way the state didn’t appreciate. So, it filed a petition tacitly invoking the unwritten and most salient criterion for review: “the state lost!” It worked.
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2020
State v. Decarlos K. Chambers, 2019AP411-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 9/16/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (derived from Cambers’ petition for review):
The State charged Chambers with 1st degree reckless homicide. He maintained that he had not committed the crimes and that was absolutely innocent. He refused all plea offers. Nevertheless, during closing arguments his lawyer told the jury they should consider convicting him of 2nd degree recklessly homicide, and they did. The issues is whether trial counsel violated Chambers’ 6th Amendment right to determine his own defense under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S Ct. 1500 (2018).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2020
Jackson County v. C.A.D, 2020AP69, District 4, 9/17/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is the second time in a week District 4 has dismissed a recommitment appeal as moot despite the claim of collateral effects: a firearm restriction, stigma, possible liability for costs of care. D4 says: “prove they exist!” A fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that the parties to an appeal cannot cite to evidence outside the record. So query how District 4 thinks appellants should prove these effects? This is why appellate courts around the country presume that committiments have collateral effects and decide them. Click here. Meanwhile, District 3 just took the opposite approach in denying a motion to dismiss a recommitment appeal for mootness. Click here. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2020
Waukesha County v. C.A.E., 2020AP834-FT, District 2, 9/16/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Carly” argued that the circuit court committed plain error when it admitted and relied on hearsay evidence of dangerousness introduced through the County’s testifying doctor at her recommitment hearing. She also challenged the court’s involuntary med order because the last time the testifying doctor had discussed the “advantages and disadvantages of medication” with her, as required by §51.61(1)(g)4, was 5 years prior to the hearing. Both arguments failed on appeal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2020
Waukesha County v. H.M.B., 202AP570, District 2, 9/16/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is not your typical Chapter 51 mootness decision. The county petitioned for the initial commitment of “Heather,” who was suffering from anorexia nervousa. She stipulated to a commitment but not to confinement at a mental hospital or to involuntary treatment. The court of appeals dismissed her appeal as moot despite the collateral consequences of a firearm restriction and stigma. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2020
County of Walworth v. Bozena Twarowksi, 2020AP208, 9/16/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
Twarowski went to pick up her dog from a kennel, balked at an inflated bill, and apparently became argumentative and hostile. The trial court convicted her of disorderly conduct, and she appealed pro se. According to the court of appeals, which criticized her poorly developed argument, Twaroski challenged the trial court’s finding that the County’s witness was credible. That argument never flies on appeal. Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 2007 WI App 134, ¶19, 301 Wis. 2d 752, 734 N.W.2d 169. And so the court of appeals affirmed.
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2020
State v. Johnathan L. Johnson, 2019AP1398, 9/9/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Johnson was arrested for OWI in a McDonald’s parking lot. He’d ordered some food at the drive-through, and an employee had noticed his intoxication and called police. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2020
State v. James E. Brown, 2020AP489, 9/9/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Officers responded to a call for shots fired; the caller apparently described the shooting party as a “black male wearing a black hoodie and shorts.” On arriving in the “vicinity” they saw a black man, Brown, driving a vehicle. Illuminating the interior of the vehicle, an officer thought he saw that Brown was wearing a dark-colored hoodie, and he stopped Brown. On approach, though, the officer saw that Brown was wearing a maroon sweatshirt and pants. [continue reading…]
{ }
