County of Grant v. Brad Alan Hochhausen, 2022AP1065, 4/13/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hochhausen was convicted of speeding under §346.57(5). The circuit court imposed a 15-day suspension of Hochhausen’s operating privileges and a civil forfeiture pursuant to §343.30(1n). On appeal he argued that §343.30(1n) does not apply to convictions under §346.57(5), The court of appeals agreed and reversed. [continue reading…]
State v. B.L., 2023AP8, 4/11/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Barry” appealed an order terminating his parental rights to his 4 1/2-year-old daughter, Alice. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting his criminal history during the grounds phase and erred in finding that it was in Alice’s best interest to terminate his rights. He lost on both issues. [continue reading…]
Winnebago County v. L.J.F.G., Case No. 22Ap1589, District 2, 04/12/2023 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J.F.G.’s (Emily’s) appeal concerned a stayed order for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication under Wis. Stat. § 55.14. While the court affirms the order and concludes that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the statutory standard, it also noted that “the County certainly could have done a better job presenting evidence” and that the testimony was “hardly a model of clarity and does not put much meat on the bones.” (Opinion, ¶15). Moreover, the court added an observational footnote that “strongly encourages not only this county but other counties as well to take more care” presenting evidence at evidentiary hearings under Chapters 51 and 55. (Id., ¶16, n.3). The court further opined from its “singular perspective that much time could be saved for everyone in ‘the system’ if such additional time and care was employed at the petition and hearing stages.” (Id.). [continue reading…]
State v. Kit R. Stilwell, 2022AP1734-CR, District 2, 4/05/23 (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After summarizing an “inordinate[ly]” complicated set of facts in an otherwise simple bail jumping case, the court of appeals notes that because he failed to file a reply brief, the state’s arguments were conceded by Stilwell. Recognizing that Stilwell was unrepresented and the “obligation on the part of a court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants,” however, the court briefly addresses Stilwell’s arguments. (Opinion, ¶7). [continue reading…]
….the next wave (no pun intended) of forensic science, discussed in this interesting article about digital voiceprinting.
State v. Jesse E. Bodie, 2021AP1656-CR, District 4, 4/13/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A state patrol officer unlawfully frisked Bodie before allowing Bodie to sit in his squad car because, under the circumstances of this case, the officer didn’t have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect Bodie was armed and dangerous. [continue reading…]
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County and Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2022AP1999-W, PFR granted 03/31/2023; COA decision affirmed, 2024 WI 14, case activity (including briefs, petition for review, and state’s response)
Davis was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors in Dane County. He applied for an attorney through the State Public Defender a day after his arrest, but made his initial appearance before a court commissioner without appointed trial counsel. That same day, Davis’ case was assigned to Judge Ellen K. Berz. Counsel was appointed to represent Davis 65 days later, and after consultation with his newly appointed counsel, Davis filed a request for substitution. Judge Berz denied the request as “untimely.” The supreme court will now review whether the delayed appointment of counsel provides an exception to the strict adherence to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4)’s deadline to file a request for substitution. [continue reading…]
State v. Antwan Eugene Gill, 2022AP654-Cr, 4/6/23, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity (including briefs)
Gill was convicted for possession of THC and for operating a vehicle with a detectable amount of THC in his blood. He argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move for suppression of the results of field sobriety and blood tests and for failing to exploit inconsistences between an officer’s testimony and his report and squad-cams footage. The court of appeals rejected both claims. [continue reading…]
