by admin
on October 17, 2022
Sauk County v. W.B., 2021AP322, 9/9/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity
This decision should strike fear in the hearts of those who have executed a healthcare power of attorney or who hold an HPOA for a loved one. According to the court of appeals, when a court declares a person incapacitated and activates his HPOA, his agent may admit him to a nursing home. But the incapacitated person retains the power to revoke his HPOA and leave the nursing home. To prevent this result, a court must order a guardianship and protective placement for him. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 17, 2022
Clark County v. R.F., 2022AP481, District 4, 9/1/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Too bad this decision isn’t recommended for publication. The court of appeals reversed an order continuing a ch. 55 protective placement because the County failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of protective placement would provide the least restrictive environment consistent with R.F.’s needs. And because the County failed to respond to R.F.’s requested remedy, the court of appeals granted it. It remanded the case with directions to order the County to transition R.F. to protective services. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 17, 2022
Clark County v. R.D.S., 2022AP229, District 4, 8/18/22; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Ch. 55 practitioners take note! This is one of a few Wisconsin decisions reversing the continuation of a ch. 55 protective placement due to insufficient evidence. Here, the County failed to prove that due to R.D.S.’s disability he was incapable of caring for himself and posed a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others. And because the County did not address R.D.S.’s requested remedy (an order allowing him to live with his parents), the court of appeals granted it. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 13, 2022
State v. A.G., 2022AP652, two petitions for review of unpublished court of appeals opinions granted 10/11/22; reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity
Issues for review:
From the State’s petition: Whether A.G., the father who lost his parental rights, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of his rights.
From the GAL’s petition: Whether Bangert‘s procedure governing motions to withdraw a criminal guilty plea should apply rigidly to TPR proceedings.
Also from the GAL’s petition. Whether a parent loses his right to appeal after failing to attend a remand hearing without excuse.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 13, 2022
Waukesha v. L.J.E., 2022AP292, 10/5/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Evans” was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, a condition considered permanent but manageable with medication. When the County sought to commit her under the 5th standard, she argued that it failed to prove that she did not satisfy one of the “exclusions” to the 5th standard. Specifically, the 5th standard does not apply where the individual may be provided protective placement or services under ch. 55. The court of appeals rejected that argument. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 13, 2022
State v. Todd W. Vaughn, 2022AP644-Cr, 9/29/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vaughn was convicted of operating a vehicle with a PAC, second offense. He claimed that the deputy who stopped him lacked reasonable suspicion because he acted solely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. The court of appeals held that the tip provided reasonable suspicion for the stop because it had “indicia of reliability” that were “suitably corroborated” as required by State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, ¶31, 241
Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 10, 2022
State v. Darrell K. Smith, 2021AP72-CR, 9/20/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Smith of 2nd degree sexual assault of A.B. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when (1) statements from a non-testifying sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) were admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, and (2) the circuit admitted a DOC photo of Smith and two officers testified that the photo was obtained from the DOC, thereby informing the jury that Smith had previous convictions. The circuit court denied both claims without a Machner hearing. The court of appeals reverses and remands for a hearing. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 10, 2022
State v. Leroy Rice, Jr., 2022AP244-CR, 9/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Rice sought resentencing based on an inadequate waiver of his right to be physically present at his sentencing per §971.04(1)(g) and based on a new factor: the circuit court overlooked his substance abuse needs at the time of sentencing and thus failed to make him eligible for substance abuse programming (SAP). Successful completion of SAP would entitle him to early release. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. [continue reading…]
{ }
