State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.
[continue reading…]
State v. Jeffrey S. Clemons, 2020AP1450-CR, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
Applying an almost-insurmountable standard of review, COA concludes there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that Clemons violated an obstructing ordinance.
Brown County D.H.S. v. A.K., 2023AP730, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
A.K. concedes that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion at this dispositional hearing, but argues that the order must still be reversed as there was no direct evidence from the proposed adoptive resource. COA rejects that argument and affirms.
Robert James Pope , Jr. v. Warden Paul Kemper, 21-CV-0346 (E.D. Wis. 9/1/23).
In a satisfying–and long-delayed–defense win, Judge Ludwig of the Eastern District acknowledges that when a prisoner, previously abandoned by counsel, is then forced to appeal his conviction without having transcripts made available to him, that procedure violates “clearly established” US Constitutional law.
[continue reading…]
Waukesha County DHHS v. M.S., 2022AP2065, District 2, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
M.S. (“Martin”) spent nearly 22 years committed under Chapter 51. In 2021, the county switched course and sought and received a permanent guardianship and protective placement under Chapters 54 and 55. Martin challenged whether he was a proper subject for protective placement, relying “quite heavily” on Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. The court of appeals refers to Martin’s argument as a “red herring” and affirms, holding that the county met its burden to prove Martin was a proper subject for protective placement under Chapter 55. (Op., ¶6). [continue reading…]
State v. Michael A. Wilson, 2022AP1099, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Despite some procedural quirks, the Court of Appeals wastes no time in affirming what turns out to be a relatively straightforward refusal conviction.
[continue reading…]
State v. William J. Buffo, 2023AP302 & 2023AP303, 8/31/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This pro se appeal stems from two criminal cases, but the opinion concerns an order from the circuit court that set “parameters for Buffo’s future filings.” In short, the circuit court entered an order that barred Buffo from filing any further motions and required any potentially “legally-valid” postconviction motions to be screened by a “Dane County judge” before any filing from Buffo would be accepted. While noting that it could dismiss Buffo’s arguments on appeal as undeveloped, the court reaches the merits and upholds the circuit court’s order. [continue reading…]
Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the examination is either (1) at the individual’s expense or (2) “if indigent and with approval of the court hearing the petition, at the reasonable expense of the individual’s county of legal residence…” As a matter of first impression, the court of appeals holds that individuals seeking such an evaluation must satisfy an implied and unspecified burden of proof to establish indigency before the individual may obtain an additional examination at county expense. (Op., ¶¶8-9). [continue reading…]
