On Point blog, page 7 of 117
COA holds that juvenile interrogated in “closet size” room by SRO was not in custody; finds evidentiary error harmless, and affirms
State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, 10/30/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a “close” suppression appeal, COA confronts a fact pattern arising from the intersection between policing and school discipline, finds that a reasonable 12-year old would have felt free to walk away from interviews with law enforcement and school authorities on school grounds, and finds the repeated injection of inadmissible evidence at the court trial harmless.
COA reverses order dismissing charge for failing to register as sex offender; defendant required to register when cir. ct. ordered registration at sentencing after revocation of probation, even though registration not required when defendant placed on probation.
State v. Kayden Young, 2021AP1596-CR, 10/29/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case recommended for publication, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing the charge against Kayden Young for failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements. Where the circuit court did not require Young to register as a sex offender when it placed him on probation, but required registration when it sentenced him after revocation of probation, “that latter order controls the defendant’s requirement to comply with sex offender registration.” (¶ 22).
COA rejects argument that circuit court made incorrect dispositional findings and affirms
State v. C.M., 2024AP1416-1418, District I, 10/15/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The parent’s challenge to the court’s discretionary termination decision goes nowhere given the standard of review.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.
COA rejects challenges to TPR order and affirms
Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.
August and September 2024 COA Publication Orders
In August and September, COA released a number of published decisions:
COA rejects challenges to refusal finding; holds that refusal statute is not unconstitutional
State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.
COA rejects challenges to “abandonment” verdict in TPR involving allegations that mother withheld child’s location from father
A.M.D. v. G.R.B., Jr., 2024AP1071, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
G.R.B. (“Bartel”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights, raising a medley of challenges. Although COA acknowledges that its prior precedent sent “mixed signals” to litigants on at least one of the issues, it ultimately rejects all of G.R.B.’s arguments and affirms.
In HUGE defense win, COA emphasizes that obtaining an involuntary med order is no walk in the park for the State
State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, 9/10/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity
In a recommended-for-publication decision, COA wholly endorses all of J.D.B.’s arguments requiring a high burden of proof when the State seeks an involuntary medication order in order to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Along the way, COA offers a bevy of helpful holdings that are also applicable outside of this highly-specialized practiced area.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.