On Point blog, page 8 of 117
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.
COA rejects challenges to 51 commitment, involuntary medication orders
Brown County v. L.M.R., 2023AP2314, District III, 8/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects all of L.M.R.’s challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this Chapter 51 case given some less-than favorable facts.
1984 prior conviction admissible in first-degree sexual assault of a child trial under the prior conviction statute, § 904.04(2)(b)2.
State v. Kenneth W. Hill, 2022AP1718-CR, 8/6/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
The state appealed after the circuit court denied its motion seeking to admit Hill’s 1984 conviction from Minnesota for “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(b)2. at his trials for two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reverses and remands with directions, outlining the relevant analysis, holding that the admissible evidence includes only the fact of the conviction, not the underlying details of the prior case, and concluding that the Sullivan analysis does not apply. (¶2).
In published decision, COA holds that CR-215 procedure triggers attachment of right to counsel but denies relief given that law was “unsettled”
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, 8/6/24, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
In a published decision that criminal practitioners have been waiting on for years, COA holds that a CR-215 probable cause procedure used to satisfy the requirements of Riverside triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
COA affirms discretionary termination order under deferential standard of review
State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.
COA rejects attack on discretionary termination order under well-settled precedent
Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.
COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.
City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.