Click here to read the Iowa County Circuit Court’s July 7th decision declaring that §165.95(1)(a) and (3)(c), which bars persons charged with violent offenses from participating in drug treatment court, violates substantive due process as applied and procedural due process on its face. The court says its decision has the effect of a permanent statewide injunction against enforcement of the statute. The State agrees.
State v. Larry Davis, 2017 WI App 55; case activity (including briefs)
Applying § 304.072(4) and State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82, 292 Wis. 2d 734, 715 N.W.2d 713, the court of appeals holds that a person who is revoked from extended supervision resumes serving his sentence when he is received in the prison system, not when revocation occurs; he is therefore entitled to sentence credit up to the date he returns to prison. [continue reading…]
Some records are not worth breaking. For SCOW, issuing the largest number of fractured, nonprecedential opinions in its history (at least since records have been kept) is surely one of them. SCOWstats just released its preliminary data on the 2016-2017 term. The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a meager 51 opinions–42 if you subtract the 1 decision that split 3-3 and the 8 decisions that failed to provide a precedential, majority opinion. One could argue that 18% of SCOW’s docket created instability in the law–ironic given that its purpose is, in part, to develop, clarify and harmonize the law. See §809.62(1r).
State v. M.W., 2016AP2045 & 2046, 7/11/17, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. pled no contest to a continuing CHIPS ground in the initial phase of the termination of her parental rights. She argues on appeal that the court erred in hearing factual basis testimony after her plea colloquy and in finding unfitness when she did not agree with some of the factual basis presented. [continue reading…]
State v. Santos Lee Hernandez, 2017AP62-CR, 7/11/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hernandez filed a postconviction motion arguing that he pled guilty to lewd and lascivious behavior while he was drunk–so drunk that he incorrectly told the court that he had not consumed alcohol within the previous 24 hours, that he understood the rights he was waiving, and that there was a factual basis for his plea. In rejecting his claim, the court of appeals commits an error that continues to dog postconviction motions. [continue reading…]
State v. A.S.F., 2016AP2076, and State v. V.C., Jr., 2016AP2077, both District 1, 7/11/17 (one-judge decisions ineligible for publication); case activity: A.S.F.; V.C.
In this pair of decisions addressing the termination of the parental rights of both parents of J.T.C., the court of appeals rejects the parents’ claim that it was error to allow J.T.C.’s adoptive parent to testify that she would allow contact between the child and members of his biological family if the court terminated the parents’ rights. The court also rejects V.C.’s argument that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence from A.S.F.’s trial to “prove up” the factual basis for V.C.’s no-contest plea to the petition. [continue reading…]
State v. K.P., 2017AP612 & 613, 7/11/2017 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
K.P. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. He argues that the circuit court erred in striking his contest posture and finding him unfit after he failed to show up for the scheduled jury trial on his parental fitness. [continue reading…]
Mike Tobin guest posts on State v. Lewis O. Floyd, Jr., 2017 WI 78, 7/7/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 371 Wis. 2d 404; case activity (including briefs)
The majority opinion affirms the rulings of the lower courts that the defendant voluntarily consented to a frisk of his person following a traffic stop. The majority reached its decision without discussing the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion of criminal activity-an issue emphasized in the dissenting opinion and previously analyzed by the court of appeals. [continue reading…]
