On Point: A. Right to counsel

State v. Jason L. Decorah, 2011AP662-CR, District 4, 12/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Decorah: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity

Collateral attack on a prior OWI used as a current enhancer, on the ground Decorah didn’t understand the range of penalties therefore didn’t validly waive counsel. Decorah prevailed below, and the court affirms on this State’s appeal:

¶3        Decorah’s collateral attack is based on his contention that,

State v. Joel D. Rhodes, 2011 WI App 145; for Rhodes: Chris L. Hartley; case activity

Self-Representation – Adequacy of Waiver of Right to Counsel 

The trial court undertook a valid waiver of counsel, pursuant to State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 206, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997):

¶18      We reject Rhodes’s claim.  The circuit court conducted a colloquy with Rhodes that the State aptly describes as exemplary.  

Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the parent provided the child throughout the child’s entire life,” Tammy W-G.

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Francine T.: Theresa J. Schmieder; for Emilano M.: Brian C. Findley; case activity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

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Wesley M., No. 2010AP2946, District 2, 6/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶7        A parent is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings, and the applicable standards are those which apply in criminal cases.  See A.S. v. State, 168 Wis.

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.

State v. Lee Alexander Brown, 2010AP970, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Russell D. Bohach; case activity; Brown BiC; State Resp.

The court holds that Brown knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at trial on his sexually violent person petition.  Although there is a question as to whether the right to counsel under the 6th amendment and Art.

State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,

State v. Kenneth B. Bonner, 2010AP1414-CR, District 1, 12/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bonner: Dennis P. Coffey; case activity; Bonner BiC; State Resp.

Counsel – Waiver

The trial court’s waiver colloquy omitted two required components: assurance that the defendant made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and was aware of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation,

State v. Rashaad A. Imani, 2010 WI 66, reversing 2009 WI App 98;habeas relief granted 6/22/16; for Imani: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶3   We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Imani’s motion to represent himself. First, we determine that Imani did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel. The circuit court engaged Imani in two of the four lines of inquiry prescribed in Klessig and properly determined that Imani (1) did not make a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel,