by admin
on September 21, 2022
Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2022AP140-FT, certification granted 9/14/22, reversed, 2023 WI 59; case activity
Issues (from the COA certification):
1. Does the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, ¶38, 399 Wis. 2d 471, 966 N.W.2d 590, apply retroactively or only prospectively?
2. In a ch. 51 case involving a petition to extend a commitment order, is circuit court competency determined from the expiration of the earlier commitment order or from the expiration of the extension order, even where the extension order is determined on appeal to be invalid?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 21, 2022
Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2022AP251, 8/31/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Langlade County v. D.J.W. requires a circuit to make specific factual findings with reference to the dangerousness standard that its recommitment order is based upon. The circuit court failed to follow D.J.W. but the court of appeals affirmed because the circuit court’s words and the county’s closing argument supposedly made it clear that they were relying on the second and fifth standards of dangerousness. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 21, 2022
City of West Bend v. Peter F. Parsons, 2022AP98, 8/17/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is an appeal of convictions for violating local ordinances in conformity with the state laws outlawing OWI. The court of appeals affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 20, 2022
State v. Wilson P. Anderson, 2020AP819-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 9/14/22; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
1. Whether Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) requires the State to submit a treatment plan in support of its motion for involuntary medication to restore a defendant’s competency to proceed in a criminal case.
2. Whether Sell requires the State to offer the opinion of a medical doctor (rather than a psychologist) to satisfy the second, third, and fourth Sell factors.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 20, 2022
M.K.S. v. R.J.F., 2021AP1839, 8/16/22, District 1 (no recommended for publication); case activity
Here is a result we don’t often see: a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a TPR case. A jury found grounds to terminate “Richard’s” parental rights. Allegedly, he had failed to assume parental responsibility for his daughter, “Morgan.” On appeal, he argued that his trial counsel failed to introduce evidence to explain his lack of contact with Morgan and that he was prevented from establishing a relationship with her. The court of appeals agreed that counsel was ineffective. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 20, 2022
State v. T.M., 2021AP1729, 8/16/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Taylor” presented three challenges to the termination of her parental rights to her son: (1) erroneous admission of a psychological examination; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to a flawed jury instruction; and (3) insufficient evidence. The court of appeals rejected all of them. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 20, 2022
State v. Singh, 2021AP1111-CR, 8/18/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Singh challenges his 2005 conviction for OWI, first offense. He first asks for a writ of coram nobis vacating the conviction. Alternatively, he asks that his conviction be vacated or amended under State v. Forrett, 2022 WI 37, 401 Wis. 2d 678, 974 N.W.2d 422, which held that an OWI penalty cannot be increased because of a prior revocation stemming from a refusal to submit a warrantless blood draw. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 20, 2022
Wood County v. J.L.S., 2022AP299, 8/25/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court entered orders for initial commitment order and involuntary medication order. Later (not sure how much later), the County persuaded the circuit court to dismiss these orders. On appeal, J.L.S. argued, among other things, that the appeal of orders was not moot due to their collateral consequences. The County filed a letter saying that it wouldn’t file a response brief because J.L.S. “correctly set forth the law in her brief.” The court of appeals deemed this letter to mean that the county did not oppose J.L.S.’s request to have both orders reversed outright. And so it reversed them.
{ }