On Point blog, page 3 of 25
COA holds that parent forfeited jurisdictional challenge to CHIPS orders
Portage County v. D.A., 2023AP1237, 1255 & 1272, 5/9/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “David” presents a superficially knotty jurisdictional argument, COA ultimately holds that he has forfeited this otherwise non-meritorious legal issue.
Challenges to summary judgment ruling, dispositional order fail in TPR appeal
Brown County Health and Human Services v. R.U., 2024AP45-6 4/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another fact-dependent TPR appeal, COA affirms given well-settled (and difficult to overcome) legal standards.
COA rejects multi-pronged attack on TPR orders
Jackson County Department of Human Services v. I.J.R.,, 2023AP1495-6 4/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another beefy TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of I.J.R.’s arguments and affirms.
Successful appeal from OWI conviction leads to simple swap for RCS conviction and sentence
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, 4/12/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24 case activity
After McAdory persuaded the court of appeals to reverse his OWI conviction and grant him a new trial, the state pulled the “old switcheroo” on McAdory by getting the circuit court to swap his previously dismissed restricted controlled substance conviction with the OWI conviction overturned by the court of appeals. Instead of a new OWI trial, McAdory was stuck with a new sentence on his previously dismissed RCS conviction. After rejecting McAdory’s challenges to the circuit court’s post-remittitur actions and his double jeopardy claims, the court of appeals affirms.
SCOW affirms denial of supervisory writ, seeks to clarify “preferred” appellate procedure to challenge denied substitution request
State ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County, the Honorable Ellen K. Berz and State of Wisconsin, 2024 WI 14, 3/26/24; case activity
A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals’ denial of Davis’ petition for a supervisory writ after concluding the the circuit court had no “plain duty” to treat Davis’ request for substitution as timely under Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4). The court also uses the decision to clarify that a petition for a supervisory writ is not the preferred vehicle to seek appellate review of a circuit court’s denial of a request for substitution that was filed after arraignment. Op, ¶11.
COA rejects attempt to use plain error doctrine to challenge hearsay evidence in 51 appeal
Portage County v. D.P.W.O., 2023AP1975, 3/7/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal challenging the use of hearsay statements contained within an examiner’s report, COA rejects D.P.W.O.’s attempt to use the plain error doctrine to prove that this unpreserved error merits reversal of the extension order.
State adequately proved that bar parking lot was a “premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles”
State v. David A. Schultz, 2022AP1622, 2/13/24, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Schultz’s technical challenge to this OWI conviction fails, as COA finds sufficient evidence that the bar parking lot in which Schultz operated his motor vehicle was covered by the OWI statute.
Misstatement of law by prosecutor in closing argument does not entitle defendant to relief
State v. Troy Allen Shaw, 2023AP697, 1/24/24, District II (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Shaw’s challenge to improper closing argument persuades COA that the prosecutor erred, but fails to overcome the imposing tests for plain and harmless error.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI conviction as procedurally barred, imposes sanctions for abuse of appellate process
State v. Robert E. Hammersley, 2022AP263, 1/4/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This pro se appeal fails due to the well-settled application of a procedural bar against successive litigation.
COA rejects important competency challenge in protective placement appeal as a result of litigant’s failure to object below
Douglas County v. M.L, 2022AP141, 12/28/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Faced with a challenge to the circuit court’s competency in this protective placement appeal, COA holds that the appellant has forfeited his challenge and therefore affirms.