by admin
on November 22, 2022
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/16/22; case activity (including PFR, PFR response, and briefs)
Issue presented (from the defendant’s PFR)
Can a circuit court use its statutory authority to modify conditions of probation and extended supervision to regulate the day-to-day affairs of individuals on supervision, contrary to statutes conferring on the Department of Corrections the exclusive authority to administer probation?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 22, 2022
State v. Roman C. Ozimek, 2021AP452, District 3, 11/22/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ozimek challenges the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI. The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court should have considered evidence that the officer misinformed Ozimek of his “constitutional right” to obtain his own chemical testing without having to first consent to the officer’s request for chemical testing. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 22, 2022
Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2022AP817, District 2, 11/16/22 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Winnebago County successfully petitioned to recommit A.P.D. under the 5th standard of dangerousness. On appeal, he argued that the county offered insufficient evidence of mental illness and of dangerousness. Although A.P.D. lost, he raised some good points that the court of appeals sidestepped or rejected. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 22, 2022
Sauk County v. A.D.S., 2022AP550, 11/17/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court recommitted A.D.S. based on §51.20(1)(a)2.c, which seems to be the standard du jour for ch. 51 recommitments. Even though A.D.S. hadn’t recently behaved dangerously, the court of appeals affirmed because recommitments may be based on past evidence of dangerousness, and credible evidence indicated that if not committed he would stop taking his medication and return to his former dangerous behavior. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 21, 2022
Portage County v. A.R.F., 2022AP1262, 11/17/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A.R.F. challenges the extension of her commitment under ch. 51. She argues the circuit court failed to adequately identify and support one of the statutory dangerousness standards, as is required by Langlade Cnty. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals disagrees. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 21, 2022
Portage County DH & HS v. S.Z. & C.Z., 2022AP1352-1355, 11/17/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case is the companion of C.Z. & S.Z., decided two weeks ago. C.Z. is the father of the four children at issue; S.Z., the appellant here, is the mother. The opinion here is pretty much a remix of the opinion in the earlier case; both parents raise similar issues and the court similarly rejects them. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 14, 2022
On November 15th, the Milwaukee Mental Health Taskforce will present the Marie C. Perry Rising Leader Award to Attorney Katie Holtz, who heads up the mental health unit of the SPD’s Milwaukee trial office. The Taskforce press release describes just what a tour de force our colleague is! [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 14, 2022
State v. Jeffrey L. Blabaum, 2022AP111, 11/10/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Blabaum texted his ex and told her to meet him in Dodgeville to retrieve a few personal items she’d left behind when she moved out of the home they shared in Tennessee. He also sent a picture of one of the items, a bench, which appeared to be sitting in a trailer. His text specified that she should “Come alone.” [continue reading…]
{ }
