by admin
on January 24, 2023
Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2022AP1207, 1/18/23, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal involves a recommitment under the 3rd standard of dangerousness. G.M.M. argued that the county presented insufficient evidence of both mental illness and dangerousness. She also argued that the circuit court failed to make the findings required under Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶59, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals rejected all 3 claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 24, 2023
State v. Ahmed A.M. Al Bawi, 2021AP432-CR, District 3, 1/18/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Al Bawi’s trial attorney was not ineffective in advising him about the immigration consequences of his plea. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 19, 2023
State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 19, 2023
State v. E.B., 2022AP1882, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
This case concerns only the disposition phase of E.B.’s TPR case. She argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion with regard to the best interest of the child factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3). Specifically, E.B. argued that the circuit court did not give her own testimony enough weight and gave too much weight to the foster mother’s testimony. However, E.B. does not argue that the circuit court failed to consider any specific factor or made clearly erroneous findings based on the evidence presented at disposition. Because circuit courts retain discretion to regarding “the weight assigned to each factor and the credibility assigned to each witness’s testimony,” the court affirms the TPR order. (Opinion, ¶15). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 19, 2023
State v. Kelly A. Monson, 2022AP1438-CR, District 2, 1/18/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was reasonable suspicion to detain Monson and have her perform field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 19, 2023
County of Winnebago v. Ryan C. Kaltenbach, 2022AP794, District 2, 1/18/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Though this is a “close case” (¶¶4, 11), the facts are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to detain Kaltenbach to have him perform field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 18, 2023
Counterman v. Colorado, USSC No. 22-138; cert. granted 1/13/23; reversed 6/27/23 Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)
Question presented:
Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on January 17, 2023
The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. renders deportable noncitizens who are convicted of aggravated felonies after they admitted to the U.S.. Under the I.N.A., “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice” where the term of imprisonment is at least one year qualifies as an aggravated felony whether it is committed in violation of state or federal law. In Pugin v. Garland, Case No. 22-23, SCOTUS will address whether the crime of being an accessory after the fact to a felony is an “offense relating to the obstruction of justice.” And in Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, Case No. 22-331, SCOTUS will address the same question regarding crimes that don’t interfere with existing investigations or judicial proceedings. For more, see SCOTUSblog’s coverage here.
{ }