On Point blog, page 1 of 2
COA affirms TPR order and holds that claimed structural error requires post-disposition motion and Machner hearing
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).
Service by Mail: Generally; Deadline, Administrative Proceeding: Computation
Karen Baker v. Department of Health Services, 2012 WI App 72 (recommended for publication); case activity
Service, by Mail – Generally
¶3 n. 2:
… In the absence of a statutory provision, the rule in Wisconsin is that service of notice by mail is not effective until the party receives it. Hotel Hay Corp. v. Milner Hotels, 255 Wis.
Mootness – Reconfinement Proceeding
State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding:
¶14 As a preliminary matter, while the issue before the court is moot because Walker has completed his reconfinement term and thus our decision will not affect the underlying controversy, we may at times consider a moot issue if it is of “great public importance or arises frequently enough to warrant a definitive decision to guide the circuit courts.”
Standards of Review: Administrative Body – Construction of Constitutional Provision
Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, 2006 WI 86
Issue/Holding:
¶14 By granting deference to agency interpretations, the court has not abdicated, and should not abdicate, its authority and responsibility to interpret statutes and decide questions of law. Some cases, however, mistakenly fail to state, before launching into a discussion of the levels of deference, that the interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law to be determined by a court.
TPR – State’s Appeal, by GAL
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264
Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 4:
Lamont argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the guardian ad litem filed the notice of appeal and the State simply joined in the appeal instead of the other way around. We reject Lamont’s contention. WISCONSIN STAT. § 48.235(7) plainly states that the guardian ad litem “may appeal,
Writs – Prohibition – John Doe Proceeding
State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification
Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe
Issue/Holding:
¶15 A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6] As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.
Reconfinement After Revocation of Extended Supervision – Review under § 809.30
State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217
For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶4 The question presented by this appeal is whether persons sentenced to a bifurcated term of imprisonment whose extended supervision is revoked may seek relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 from the trial court’s reconfinement order. We hold that they may.
Review of reconfinement has been a sticking point for some time,
John Doe Proceeding – Review of, by Supervisory Writ
State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:
¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.
Writs – Supervisory – John Doe Proceeding, Review of
State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:
¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.
CHIPS Appeal – Commenced by NOI
Juneau County DHS v. James B., 2000 WI App 86, 234 Wis. 2d 406, 610 N.W.2d 144
For Appellant: James L. Boardman; Chris R. Velnetske
Issue: Whether the court of appeals acquires jurisdiction over a CHIPS appeal commenced by notice of appeal without prior notice of intent to pursue relief.
Holding: ¶4:
In CHIPS cases, appeals are commenced by first filing of a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief,