State v. J.D.C., Jr., 2022AP1028, District 1, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects J.D.C.’s claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding that termination of J.D.C.’s parental rights was in the best interest of his parental rights to C.M.M. [continue reading…]
Brown County DHS v. K.Y.T., 2022AP531, District 3, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The county petitioned to terminate K.Y.T.’s parental rights to M.Z. alleging abandonment for both a 3-month and a 6-month period and failure to assume parental responsibility. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the county proved both grounds. [continue reading…]
State v. Tomas J. Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished opinion granted 9/14/22; case activity (including briefs)
Issue: (adapted from the State’s PFR):
The 5th Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from commenting on defendant’s failure to to the stand. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965); Bies v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 322, 325-26, 193 N.W.2d 46 (1972). In a case where the defendant exercises his right not to testify, does the prosecution violate this prohibition by telling the jury that the victim’s account is “uncontroverted” and no evidence was offered to dispute it?
State v. Brynton C. Foston, 2022AP387, 9/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer saw Foston driving without headlights between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. and activated his emergency lights. Foston didn’t stop. He accelerated, pulled into his driveway, and stumbled as he tried to reach his back door. The officer started giving commands, and Foston, who had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech became argumentative. There was no dispute that the initial stop for a traffic violation was lawful. Based on the totality of the facts just described, the court of appeals held that the officer also had strong reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate a possible OWI, pursuant to State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 94, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999).
Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP606-FT, 9/7/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
Winnebago County dumped 550 pages of discovery on counsel 2 hours and 15 minutes before “Paul’s” recommitment hearing, so he requested a adjournment. “Denied!” said the circuit court because §51.20(10)(e) allows only 1 adjournment, which had already been used. If the SPD had appointed counsel sooner, this wouldn’t have happened. On appeal, Paul argued that the court misread the statute, and he can’t control the appointment process. He also argued that the county failed to prove that the examiner gave him a “reasonable explanation” of the “particular medication” prescribed for him per §51.61(1)(g)(4) and Outagamie County v. Melanie L. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
State v. D.T., 2022AP909, 8/23/22, District 1 (oen-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.T. showed up late for his Zoom TPR trial. It had been set for 9:00; D.T. appeared at 11:00 and said he was having eye trouble that kept him from logging in. The circuit court defaulted him and declined to vacate that default. The court of appeals affirms, noting that D.T. had missed other hearings. [continue reading…]
Outagamie County v. R.G.K., 2019AP2134, 9/20/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
After the county petitioned to recommit “Rick” only his counsel appeared at the final hearing. The court found good cause to extend the recommitment in order to schedule a new final hearing. Unfortunately, Rick did not appear at the rescheduled hearing either, so the circuit court defaulted him. [continue reading…]
Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2021AP1955 & 2022AP102, 8/30/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is a double defense win! You might even call it a quadruple defense win! The court of appeals consolidated “Chris’s” appeals from his initial commitment order and his recommitment order. It reversed his initial commitment order because (1) the circuit court violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient. It reversed the recommitment order because (3) the circuit court’s fact findings were clearly erroneous, and (4) all the county proved was that if treatment were withdrawn Chris would engage in the same conduct that was insufficient to support the initial commitment. [continue reading…]
