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…]
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…]
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 Monese testified that if treatment were withdrawn, he would become a proper subject of commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c. J.D.J. does not believe he has a mental illness, so he would stop treatment and become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…]
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…]
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?
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…]
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…]
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…]
