by admin
on December 19, 2021
Ozaukee County v. J.D.A., 2021AP1148, District 2, 12/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court ordering a ch. 51 recommitment petition to make specific factual findings with reference to the relevant subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment order is based. At “Jane’s” recommitment proceeding, the circuit court cited a subdivision paragraph—specifically, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e.—but said little about the substance of the standard articulated under that subdivision paragraph and how the evidence proved the statutory elements of that standard. Thus, its findings were insufficient under D.J.W. and the recommitment order and medication order are reversed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 19, 2021
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2021 WI App 89; case activity (including briefs)
McAdory was charged with driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substances—cocaine and THC—and driving under the influence of those substances. At trial, the state convinced the trial judge to modify the standard jury instruction for the latter charge, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2664, by deleting the statement that not every person who has consumed controlled substances is “under the influence.” This modification, coupled with the prosecutor’s closing argument that it had proven its case by proving McAdory had a detectable amount of the substances, effectively relieved the state of its burden to prove that McAdory was “under the influence.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 16, 2021
State v. Dallas R. Christel, 2020AP1127-1128-Cr, 12/8/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Christel argued that §940.235, which criminalizes strangulation and suffocation, (1) violates substantive due process on its face and as applied to him, (2) is overbroad, and (3) is void for vagueness. He also argued for a new-factor-based sentence modification on his bail-jumping convictions. The court of appeals torpedoed every claim. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 14, 2021
State v. Nietzold, 2021AP21-CR, 12/9/21, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)
The State admits that it made a sentencing recommendation that breached the parties’ plea agreement. It claimed that the breach was not “material and substantial” because after the defendant objected it withdrew the recommendation. The court of appeals found the State’s breach to be “material and substantial” and the DA’s after-the-fact retraction of its comments and recommendation did not cure the breach. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 14, 2021
State v. B.M., 2021AP501-FT, 12/14/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A court found “Brandon” delinquent and placed him on juvenile supervision. It said that if the State wanted electronic monitoring it could “schedule further proceedings and we’ll take that up.” But then the written order directed that he “shall participate in the electronic monitoring program as deemed appropriate by the assigned juvenile worker for any violation of supervision.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 8, 2021
State v. Anne E. Streckenbach, 2020AP345-CR, 12/7/21, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
When a cop stopped Streckenbach for a traffic violation he observed signs of intoxication. He asked her the 24 questions that appear the DOT’s Alcohol/Drug Influence Report–questions that are usually asked after the driver has been arrested and Mirandized. Streckenbach couldn’t answer all of the questions, so the cop conducted field sobriety tests, which she failed. Did the cop’s questioning violate her state and federal constitutional rights to be free from self-incrimination? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 8, 2021
State v. A.P., 2021AP1146-47, 12/7/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A.P. appealed orders terminating his parental rights to his two children. The court of appeals rejected his claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to make his mother the guardian of the children and his new trial in the interests of justice claim. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 8, 2021
Marathon County v. J.A.E., 2021AP898, 12/7/21, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
For an initial commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c., the circuit court must find clear and convincing evidence that a mentally ill person’s judgment is impaired such that there is “a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself or others.” The court of appeals held that James’s hallucinations during his examinations, his refusal of medication, and his use of methamphetamine satisfied this standard. [continue reading…]
{ }
