by admin
on December 5, 2018
Milwaukee County v. T.L.R., 2018AP1131, 12/4/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity
Here’s an issue of first impression for SCOW. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D. Wis. 1972) established procedural and substantive due process rights for persons undergoing mental commitments. One of those rights is the right to particularized notice of the basis for detention, including, the legal standard upon which the person is detained. Id. at 1092. T.L.R didn’t receive that notice. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 5, 2018
Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 5, 2018
On November 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:
State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67 (juvenile court’s waiver into adult court binds all future courts)
{ }
by admin
on December 5, 2018
On October 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:
State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63 (defendant consented to search of his computer and had no expectation of privacy in files put on P2P file sharing network)
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2018
State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2019 WI App 4; petition for review granted 6/11/19, reversed, 2020 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)
Neill pleaded to an OWI-3rd, which has a minimum fine of $600. Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)3. His plea came with two statutory enhancers: the one for having a BAC over .25 (Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)3.), and the one for having a child in a car (§ 346.65(2)(f)2.). The former quadruples the minimum fine, and the latter doubles it. So, what’s the minimum fine? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2018
State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2018
State v. Steven L. Buckingham, 2017AP1852-CR, 12/4/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs).
When the court of appeals’ dismisses an appellant’s arguments on the grounds that they are “conclusory,” it’s always wise to check the briefs. In this case, Buckingham filed a fully-developed, well-organized 42-page brief in chief presenting 5 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim for post-conviction discovery. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2018
State v. R.H., 2018AP1827, District 1, 12/4/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The standard of review doomed this appeal, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that R.H. failed to assume parental responsibility during the grounds phase of a TPR. [continue reading…]
{ }
