On Point: 8. Discretionary decision

State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.

Manitowoc County H.S.D. v. T.H., 2022AP1631, District II, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Applying a deferential standard of review, the court of appeals rejects T.H.’s attempts to obtain CPS records he claims are essential to present a complete defense in a related criminal case.

State v. Eric J. Debrow, 2023 WI 54, 6/23/23, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In yet another reversal of a defense win, SCOW defers to the circuit court’s decision denying a motion for mistrial but slightly muddies the waters as to the proper legal analysis when assessing mistrial claims on appeal.

State v. E.B., 2022AP1882, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity

This case concerns only the disposition phase of E.B.’s TPR case. She argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion with regard to the best interest of the child factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3).  Specifically, E.B. argued that the circuit court did not give her own testimony enough weight and gave too much weight to the foster mother’s testimony. However, E.B. does not argue that the circuit court failed to consider any specific factor or made clearly erroneous findings based on the evidence presented at disposition. Because circuit courts retain discretion to regarding “the weight assigned to each factor and the credibility assigned to each witness’s testimony,” the court affirms the TPR order. (Opinion, ¶15).

State v. X.S., 2022 WI 49, 6/29/22, modifying and affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2021AP419, case activity (including, for some reason, one brief)

Our supreme court is fond of extolling its role as a “law-developing court.” You’ll search in vain for any law development in this case. Rather than developing the law, the high court exercises its discretion to waive a juvenile into the adult system.

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, granted 10/18/21, case activity

Issues:

1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously exercised its discretion in denying “Xander’s” motion for reconsideration less than 24 hours after it was filed without any explanation?

2. Whether a juvenile who stipulates to the prosecutive merit of a delinquency petition is estopped from presenting any evidence to contradict factual averments in the petition even when those facts do not negate probable cause for the charged offense?

3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously applied the discretionary standard of review?

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.

State v. M.C., 2021AP301, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decsion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding to waive M.C. into adult court on a sexual assault charge, so the waiver is reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion properly.

County of Milwaukee v. Christann Spannraft, 2018AP1553 & 1554, 6/23/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

This is a pro se appeal of an OWI-1st conviction. Spannraft raises three claims, all of which are rejected.

State v. A.M.J., 2019AP420, 4/14/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a juvenile case so pseudonyms abound. The state accused “Adam” of taking some vehicles from “the Morrisons” and also, in the same incident, damaging some property belonging to “the Olsons.” The district attorney filed a petition concerning the taking of the Morrisons’ vehicles, and Adam was eventually adjudicated delinquent. A few weeks after that adjudication, the DA filed a second petition regarding the criminal damage to the Olsons’ property. This is an appeal of Adam’s adjudication on that second petition; he argues it was not timely filed under the juvenile code. The court of appeals doubts the petition was untimely but holds that even if it was, the circuit court wasn’t statutorily obligated to dismiss it.