by admin
on March 28, 2023
State v. N.H., 2022AP1945, District 1, 03/14/2023, (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication) case activity
This case presents a relatively straightforward application of how Bangert applies to termination of parental rights pleas. As noted by the decision, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering a more nuanced version of the issue in State v. A.G. In Nico’s (N.H.) case, the court of appeals again holds that a circuit court’s incorrect explanation of the applicable statutory standard at disposition entitles the parent to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert to determine whether the state can prove the parent’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Opinion, ¶1. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 24, 2023
State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, certification granted 3/24/23; remanded, 2023 WI 69;District 2; case activity (including briefs) case activity (including briefs)
Question presented (from the court of appeals’ certification):
In light of the 2014 amendment of WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2)(b) (2019-20), codifying and expanding the “greater latitude” rule and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsey, 2018 WI 10, ¶¶23-25, 379 Wis. 2d 386, 906 N.W.2d 158, interpreting and applying that amendment, are State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982), and State v. Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214, still controlling law as they relate to the admissibility of prior nonconsensual sexual wrongs in cases involving an adult victim of an alleged sexual assault where consent is the primary issue?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 23, 2023
State v. Y.P.V., 2022AP1935-36, 3/21/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals reversed and remanded this TPR for two reasons. First, the mom made a prima facie case that her “no contest” plea to grounds was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, during the plea colloquy, the circuit court misstated the law that would apply during the disposition. Then, at the disposition phase, the circuit court failed to apply the proper standard of law and misstated an important fact. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 23, 2023
Waukesha County DHHS v. M.A.S., 2022AP877, District 2, 3/22/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.B. (Rose), a daughter of M.A.S. (Mary), filed an appeal of an order granting the County’s petition for a protective placement of Mary. The court of appeals holds Rose doesn’t have standing to appeal the order. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 23, 2023
State v. Jenny E. Clark, 2022AP495-CR, District 4, 3/23/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Clark’s Minnesota administrative suspension for operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration counts as a prior OWI conviction under State v. Carter, 2010 WI 132, 330 Wis. 2d 1, 794 N.W.2d 213. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 22, 2023
The filing of an Emergency Protective Placement petition under §55.135(1) triggers a probable cause hearing within 72 hours. Once the court finds probable cause it may order a temporary protective placement for up to 30 days pending a hearing on a permanent protective placement. Wis. Stat. §55.135(5). Sometimes the client wants to exercise her right to an independent comprehensive evaluation under §55.10(4)(e) and §55.11(2), yet has trouble finding a doctor who can complete it within 30 days. May the client stipulate to extend the temporary protective placement so that she can obtain the evaluation? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 20, 2023
State v. Adekola John Adekale, 2022AP1351, 3/9/20223, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Adekale’s vehicle for speeding and having a bad taillight. Adekale parked his car in a parking lot on the south side of a Motel 6. There were six passengers in the car, who “kept chiming in” and asking about the stop. They were boisterous and seemed to have been drinking. The officer asked them to leave, and they walked toward the hotel’s entrances, though the officer could not see if they went in. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 19, 2023
Marathon County v. T.R.H., 2022AP1394, 3/14/23, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Counties often seek recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c, the third standard of dangerousness. It is the easiest standard to satisfy–especially at the recommitment stage. But not this time. The court of appeals held that the county can’t just offer testimony that, at some point in the past, the person failed to care for himself, experienced delusions, and struggled with social interactions when not on medication. The county’s evidence must be more specific. [continue reading…]
{ }
