On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. D.M.S.W., Sr., 2018AP124-125, 4/3/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶9 We conclude that D.M.W., Sr. waived his right to appellate review of the circuit court’s decision to sua sponte sever the parents’ hearings. Prior to the fact finding hearings, the circuit court informed D.M.W., Sr. that it would sever the fact finding hearings because the parents had a history of domestic abuse and the court did not find it appropriate to conduct fact finding simultaneously. D.M.W., Sr., pro se at the time, did not object. The court also explained its decision to standby counsel and asked counsel to explain the severance issue to D.M.W., Sr. The court informed the parties that they would have an opportunity to address any concerns pertaining to severance. D.M.W., Sr. did not raise any concerns as to this issue. Nor did counsel raise any objections to the severance of the parents’ disposition hearings after the court explained the basis for its decision. . . .It is well established law that an issue not raised in the circuit court is deemed waived for appellate review. See State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 457, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988) . . .

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity
Issues:

1. Where, during the grounds phase of a TPR trial, the circuit court errs by directing a verdict in favor of the State without giving the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, has the court committed structural error, or is the error subject to a harmless error analysis?

2. If the error in this case is not structural, then was it harmless?

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court decided U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, USSC No. 15-1509, 2018 WL 1143822, a bankruptcy case that we note here solely because it addresses a narrow issue that can matter to appellate litigators, civil and criminal: What is the standard of appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact? The answer: Well, it “depends,” though less so in the kind of constitutional questions criminal litigators often face.

State ex rel. Gregory S. Gorak v. Michael Meisner, Warden, 2017AP39, District 1, 2/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court denied Gorak’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after deciding it was procedurally barred because the issues it raised had already been litigated and decided.  The court of appeals holds that is not the case. 

Rodney Class v. United States, USSC No. 16-424, 2018 WL 987347 (February 21, 2018), reversing United States v. Class, (unreported) (D.C. Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (inlcuding links to briefs and commentary)

“The question [in this case] is whether a guilty plea by itself bars a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal. We hold that it does not. Class did not relinquish his right to appeal the District Court’s constitutional determinations simply by pleading guilty.” (Slip op. at 3).

State v. Lance P. Howard, 2017AP677-688-CR, 2/21/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

How to irritate the court of appeals. If you haven’t figure that out yet, read this opinion. 

State v. J.D.V., 2017AP1057, District 3, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.V. (given the pseudonym “Joseph” by the court) was adjudged delinquent for punching Thomas, another juvenile, in the head outside of school. The incident was recorded by Charles, another student, using his electronic device. Based primarily on that recording the trial court rejected Joseph’s self-defense claim—rightly so, says the court of appeals.

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself.

State v. August D. Genz, 2016AP2475-CR, District 3, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Genz of (1) possession with intent to deliver amphetamine and (2) conspiracy to deliver THC. The court imposed concurrent, stayed sentences with 1 year of probation. Genz appealed the 2nd conviction, but he completed his term of probation while the appeal was pending. The State moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court of appeals said, essentially, no way. The appeal was not moot because a felony conviction has collateral consequences. Furthermore, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy to deliver THC.  Conviction reversed!

State v. Morris Rash, 2016AP2494-CR, District 1, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Morris Rash was convicted of substantial battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial. When it came time for postconviction proceedings and/or an appeal, it turned out that some photographs used as exhibits at the trial were not in the court record.