by admin
on November 14, 2018
State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, 11/13/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/9/19, affirmed, 2019 WI 106, ; case activity (including briefs)
Here’s good one for SCOW. A jury convicted Pope of 2 counts of 1st degree homicide in 1996. His lawyer forgot to file a notice of intent. Twenty years later, the State stipulated to reinstatement of Pope’s direct appeal. He tried to order transcripts but couldn’t because the court reporters had destroyed their notes. The circuit court ordered a new trial, but the court of appeals reversed because his new lawyer could not predict what “colorable claims” lurked in transcripts that weren’t prepared and could never be reconstructed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 14, 2018
St. Croix County v. Kimberly L. Severson, 2017AP1111, 11/13/18, District 3, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a City of Eau Claire v. Booth redux. In 2001 Severson was charged with OWI 1st in Eau Claire County and convicted of a separate OWI 1st in St. Croix County. Had St. Croix conviction been properly charged as an OWI 2nd, Severson would have had a constitutional right to counsel. But te court of appeals, applying Booth, held that Severson’s failure to object to the St. Croix County circuit court’s lack of competency to proceed to judgment forfeited that issue for appeal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2018
State v. Jonalle L. Ferraro, 2018AP498, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
As in Palmersheim just last week, here we have another successor to Weber from the 2016 term – an officer follows a driver (or recent driver) into his or her garage to arrest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2018
State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2018
Monroe County v. B.L., 2018AP694, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.L. argues on appeal that the doctor who initiated his emergency detention could not also be one of the examiners appointed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)1.. The court does not address the argument, because B.L. raises it for the first time on appeal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2018
Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2. The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2018
Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2018
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)
At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial. [continue reading…]
{ }
