State v. Joseph G. Green, 2022 WI 30, 5/13/22, limiting in part and affirming in part, a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Section 971.14(5)(a)1 provides that a defendant’s commitment for treatment to competency cannot exceed 12 months or his maximum sentence, whichever is less. So the State argued that if a defendant appeals an involuntary medication order, this period must be tolled, otherwise the appeal time will consume the commitment period. SCOW unanimously rejects that argument. Unfortunately, a majority then “limits” State v. Scott‘s automatic stay of involuntary med orders to those entered during postconviction proceedings. In truth, SCOW eliminated the automatic stay. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. D.J.L., 2021AP436, 5/10/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
The State charged 17-year-old “David” with exposing himself to two girls (5 and 9) and sexually assaulting the older one. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court’s decision to waive him into adult court. The court of appeals held that the circuit court (1) appropriately applied §938.18(5)’s waiver criteria, (2) had the discretion to reject an expert opinion opposing waiver, and (3) did not base its decision on the fact that D.J.L. would get a lighter sentence if he stayed in juvenile court. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Joshua John Hansen, 2021AP1006 & 2021AP1620-CR, District 4, 5/5/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A blue light illuminating the rear license plate is an apparent equipment violation and thus justified the stop of Hansen’s car. Once stopped, the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate whether Hansen was operating while intoxicated. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Ryan L. Bessert, 2021AP1062-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly applied § 972.11(2m)(a) under the circumstances of this case when allowing the complaining child witness to testify via closed circuit television, so Bessert’s right to confrontation was not violated. In addition, assuming without deciding that Bessert’s right to a public trial was violated because the courthouse doors were locked when the circuit court issued its verdict, the court employed an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation by timely re-announcing the verdicts in open court. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer, 2020AP1406-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kothbauer challenges his trial lawyer’s representation in a prosecution for operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient or, even if he was, the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial. [continue reading…]
{ }
Milwaukee County v. A.J.G., 2021AP1338, 5/3/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
When a circuit court orders a ch. 51 recommitment, it must specify which standard of dangerousness the patient will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn. Langlade County. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 941 N.W.2d 277. This case holds that a circuit court must also specify the standard of dangerousness that the patient meets when ordering an initial commitment. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. A.A., 2022AP311, 5/3/22. District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
T.W. was born at 26 weeks with a host of serious medical problems. At discharge, he needed 24-hour care. T.W. couldn’t meet those needs because she had her own challenges. She pled “no contest” to continuing CHIPS during the grounds phase of her TPR case. When the court terminated her rights to T.W., she appealed arguing that it had weighed the evidence incorrectly. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Evan J. Schnoll, 2021AP1119-CR, 4/28/22; District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2020, Schnoll was charged with OWI 2nd. He challenged the validity of his prior OWI, which occurred in California, arguing that it could not be counted under Wisconsin law. The circuit court rejected his argument and counted the California conviction. The court of appeals granted Schnoll’s petition for leave to appeal but now affirms the circuit court. [continue reading…]
{ }
