On Point: 1. Appeals

Marathon County v. D.K., 2017AP2217, petition for review granted 7/10/19; affirmed 2/4/2020; case activity

As our prior post noted, the court of appeals upheld D.K. (or “Donald”)’s commitment against his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The supreme court has now agreed to decide whether the testimony of the examining physician, who was the sole witness at D.K.’s trial, supplied enough for the court to find by “clear and convincing evidence” a “substantial probability” that D.K. was dangerous.

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, USSC No. 18-7739, cert granted 5/30/19

Question presented:

Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.

State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2019 WI 59, May 31, 2019, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Trammell challenged Wis. JI—Criminal 140, Wisconsin’s standard instruction on the burden of proof in a criminal case, arguing it dilutes the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His primary challenge was to the directives that “[w]hile it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt. You are to search for truth.” The court rejects Trammell’s arguments, though two concurring justices ask the Criminal Jury Instruction Committee to consider whether the instruction should be modified because it lacks an explanation of the quantum of proof required.

Village of McFarland v. Dale R. Meyer, 2018AP2130, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Harsh! That’s best description for this court of appeals decision sanctioning Meyer for his pro se appeal of his first OWI. The decision runs afoul of Amek Bin- Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 335 N.W. 384 (1983) and Howell v. Denomie, 2005 WI 81, 282 Wis. 2d 130, 698 N.W.2d 62. Hopefully, a lawyer will take Meyer’s appeal, file a petition for review, and at least get the frivolous finding reversed. 

State v. Dale Andrejczak, 2019AP285, 5/23/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including response brief only)

Talk about disparate treatment. In a considered, respectful ruling against a different pro se appellant, the court of appeals here affirms a conviction for obstructing an officer out of deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations.

Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, 5/21/2019, affirming an unpublished order dismissing appeal as moot; case activity

Practitioners know that it’s rare to get from final judgment to court of appeals decision on the merits in less than a year. Just the ordinary statutory time frames for appointment of counsel, transcripts, motions or notices, transmitting the record, and briefing schedules can easily eat up well over half that time. So, an extension of a ch. 51 commitment–which is statutorily limited to one year in length–will often, if not invariably, be over by the time a decision can be reached. The supreme court now decides that, in some cases at least, this makes appeals of those extensions moot.

State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19, and State v. Donavinn Coffee, 2017AP2292-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19; case activity (Counihan; Coffee)

Issues:

Does a defendant forfeit his right to challenge a judge’s consideration of information at sentencing by failing to object to the information at the time of sentencing?

If trial counsel does not object to the court’s consideration of the information and the defendant alleges postconviction that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, what is the standard for determining whether trial counsel’s failure was prejudicial?

Waukesha County v. W.E.L., 2018AP1486, District 2, 5/15/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While W.E.L.’s challenge to his initial six-month-long commitment and medication orders was pending, both orders were extended by stipulation for 12 months. He didn’t challenge the extension, so his appeal of the initial orders is moot.

State v. Danny L. Waters, 2018AP1455, District 4, 5/2/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The argument Waters made at his refusal hearing wasn’t sufficiently clear to preserve the issue for appeal.

State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .

¶1  We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.