On Point blog, page 5 of 49
COA holds that trial court properly removed adversary counsel in CHIPS case; reverses order reducing lawyer’s fee
Richland County DH&HS v. D.M.K., 2022AP2190, District IV, 11/14/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat rare CHIPS appeal, COA upholds the circuit court’s decision to remove adversary counsel but reverses the court’s order modifying that attorney’s request for fees.
COA upholds restitution award and denial of postconviction IAC claim
State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.
COA reverses order excluding other acts evidence, holds that greater latitude rule weakens holding of Alsteen
State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, 11/6/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case confirming the changes wrought to other acts case law as a result of the codification of the greater latitude rule, COA reverses the circuit court’s order excluding evidence of a prior sexual assault
COA affirms competency ruling but reverses involuntary medication order
State v. M.M.K., 2024AP591-CR, 2024AP592-CR, 2024AP593-CR, 2024AP594-CR, 10/31/24, District IV(1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case which continues a new trend in appeals of involuntary medication appeals, COA holds that while the circuit court correctly found M.M.K. incompetent, it failed to correctly apply Sell in ordering involuntary medication.
TPR verdict and dispositional order affirmed
State v. T.H.-M., 2024AP1271-1273, District I, 10/29/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another dense and fact-specific opinion, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the parent was unfit and rejects T.H.-M.’s argument that the circuit court improperly weighed the evidence at disposition.
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 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 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.
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.