by admin
on November 30, 2022
Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62; case activity
Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published decision, the court of appeals holds that these statutes protect the person’s right to be physically present. Attendance by phone or video under §§885.58 and 885.60 does not suffice. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 30, 2022
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 11/23/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants shall not be issued except upon probable cause “supported by Oath or affirmation.” The officer who applied for a warrant to draw Moeser’s blood after an OWI arrest made no oral oath or affirmation before signing the affidavit in support of the warrant or before the judicial officer who approved the warrant. (¶8). But that doesn’t make the warrant invalid, because oath or affirmation is a matter of substance, not form, and it’s clear that the officer manifested an intent to be bound by his statement under circumstances that emphasize the need to tell the truth. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 30, 2022
State v. Cartrell Romel Kimble, 2021AP1227-CR, Distirct 1, 11/29/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The prosecutor’s closing argument didn’t amount to “vouching” for the credibility of the pretrial statements of two recanting witnesses. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 30, 2022
On November 30, 2022, the court of appeals ordered publication of a single civil case.
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2022
State v. X.B.A.-S., 2022AP944-946, 11/29/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
When a circuit court finds a juvenile not competent to proceed in a delinquency proceeding but likely to regain, may it “counsel and close” the related JIPS cases per §938.34(1)? Or must it enter dispositional orders requiring periodic reexaminations of the juvenile per §938.30(5)(e)? Siding with the State, the court of appeals chose the latter option. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2022
L.E.H. v. R.E.M., 2022AP713-715, 11/22/11, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” and “Rebecca” had 3 children together. After their relationship ended, Rebecca struggled with addiction and was charged with a number of crimes. Luke married and successfully petitioned to terminate Rebecca’s parental rights. Rebecca appealed the TPR arguing the circuit court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on the grounds that she abandoned her children, and (2) created the appearance of bias during the disposition hearing. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 28, 2022
Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2022AP1357-FT, 11/23/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.J. has schizophrenia. At his recommitment hearing, Dr. Monese testified that if treatment were withdrawn, he would become a proper subject of commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c. J.D.J. does not believe he has a mental illness, so he would stop treatment and become “violent.” Third-standard recommitments are increasingly common. This decision highlights the need for more vigorous defense strategies in these cases. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 28, 2022
State v. C.L., 2022AP1580-1582, 11/22/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
C.L. argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in finding that the termination her parental rights to her 3 kids was in their best interests under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). The court of appeals was not persuaded by her arguments that the paternal grandparents should be guardians, not an adoptive resource, for the children and that the circuit court failed to consider all of the “best interests” factors. [continue reading…]
{ }
