by admin
on September 24, 2019
State v. K.K.E., 2019AP115-117; 9/24/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court terminated K.K.E.’s parental rights based on the best interests of her three daughters. On appeal, K.K.E. conceded that the trial court addressed the 6 “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3). But she challenged the weight the trial court assigned to each factor. In affirming, the court of appeals explains how a trial court’s weighing of these factors is virtually unassailable on appeal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 24, 2019
In its 1973-74 term, SCOW decided a whopping 316 appeals. In the 2018-19 term it decided only 58. Of course, there was no court of appeals back in 1974. Still, what a huge change in caseload! Click on SCOWstats.com’ new stat pack for the 1973-74 term to see more dramatic differences between then and now. (Spoiler alert: 94% of opinions unanimous then. Only 49% unanimous now.)
{ }
by admin
on September 24, 2019
State v. Marvin Frank Robinson, 2019AP105-106-CR; 9/24/19; District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Robinson pled to misdemeanor battery with domestic abuse assessements and to knowingly violating a temporary restraining order in one case. He also pled to misdemeanor bail jumping (violation of the TRO) and other crimes in a second case. On appeal, he challenged trial court’s application of the domestic abuse modifier and its imposition of the domestic abuse surcharge, but the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 21, 2019
State v. Troy K. Kettlewell, 2018AP926, 9/18/2019, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a very fact-intensive OWI case and the court is to be commended for really critically examining what all these facts add up to: not much. As in, not much reason to think Kettlewell was in any danger, so no good reason to go into his house without a warrant. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 21, 2019
State v. James Edward Olson, 2018AP1987, 9/17/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olson says that the DOC extended his probation by six months without notice to him, and he shouldn’t have to pay the fees associated with those six months. The court of appeals has two problems with this claim: the record contains an order for the extension, apparently signed by him, and his probation ended in 1997. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 19, 2019
State v. Tyler J. Yost, 2018AP2251-CR, 9/18/19, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Loose lips sink ships. They can also land you in jail for another year. That’s what happened to Yost when he and other inmates started bad mouthing their probation agent while chilling in the common area of the Waukesha County Jail. Yost allegedly called his agent a “bitch” and said that when he got out he was going to “crimp her brake lines,” and he didn’t care if her kids or family were in the car. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 17, 2019
State v. Larry C. Lokken, 2017AP2087-CR, 9/17/19, District 3 (unpublished), case activity (including briefs)
Lokken, a long-time Eau Claire County Treasurer, pled “no contest” to 3 counts of misconduct in office and 5 counts of theft in a business setting for stealing $625,758.22 from taxpayers. The circuit court ordered $681,846.92 in restitution and imposed an unusual condition of probation on one of the counts: if Lokken failed to pay restitution in 4 1/2 years, the 10-year probation period on Count 2 would be revoked. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 17, 2019
State v. Taurus Donnell Renfro, 2019AP193, 9/17/19, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Renfro was a passenger in a car stopped by the police. He was riding from his old residence to his parents’ house–he was moving in with them. When asked, he told the officers that he was carrying a gun in his pocket, and that he didn’t have a concealed-carry permit. A jury convicted him of violating Wis. Stat. § 941.23. [continue reading…]
{ }
