On Point: 4. Civil Proceedings

State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25).

State v. Joseph William Netzer, 2015AP213, District 4, 10/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

¶1     …. Netzer argues on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial, and that the results of his blood tests were impermissibly admitted into evidence. We conclude that Netzer possessed no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding,

Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83; case activity

David G.’s parental rights were terminated in a proceeding commenced by the child’s mother. He filed a timely notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief, but his appointed appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal before the deadline. (¶3). That deadline cannot be extended because the legislature has decreed that the time for filing an appeal in a TPR case may not be enlarged when the petition was filed by someone other than “a representative of the public.”

State v. Francine T., 2010AP3140 / State v. Emilano M., 2010AP2596, District 1, 8/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Francine T.: Theresa J. Schmieder; for Emilano M.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

¶17      Francine and Emiliano argue that the trial court lacked competence [5] to enter the June 2, 2010 TPR order because it did not have competence to enter 
the January 31,

Michael D. Turner v. Rogers, USSC No. 10-10, 6/20/11

Appellate Procedure – Mootness Doctrine

Turner’s appeal – he challenges denial of appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding but has fully served the resultant 12-month sentence –  isn’t moot:

The short, conclusive answer to respondents’ mootness claim, however, is that this case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are “capable of repetition” while “evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co.