On Point blog, page 114 of 490
Warrantless entry to home requires suppression of evidence
State v. Brett C. Basler, 2018AP2299-CR, District 2, 5/15/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police entered Basler’s home looking for a driver suspected of hitting a Hardee’s® restaurant while operating while intoxicated. They didn’t have a warrant. There were no exigent circumstances. The entry was unlawful.
Extension of commitment moots appeal of original order
Waukesha County v. W.E.L., 2018AP1486, District 2, 5/15/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While W.E.L.’s challenge to his initial six-month-long commitment and medication orders was pending, both orders were extended by stipulation for 12 months. He didn’t challenge the extension, so his appeal of the initial orders is moot.
Chapter 51 extension statute constitutional, and extension order was valid
Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2018AP987, District 1, 5/14/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects D.C.B.’s constitutional and procedural challenges to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment.
Turning off idling car didn’t scotch probable cause
City of West Allis v. James M. Gregg, 2018AP1326, District 1, 5/14/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sure, the car wasn’t running by the time the officer pulled up behind it with his squad lights flashing. But that doesn’t mean the officer lacked probable cause to believe the guy behind the wheel had been operating while intoxicated.
Harmless error and a “reasonable reading” of the record doomed dad’s appeal from TPR order
Dane County DHS v. T.S., 2019AP415, 5/9/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of this TPR case, T.S. challenged the circuit court’s application of §48.415(2), the CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights. He also argued that at the disposition phase the circuit court ignored one of the “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3) and substituted in an improper factor. He lost on both counts.
Refusal hearing argument didn’t clearly raise issue argued on appeal, so it’s forfeited
State v. Danny L. Waters, 2018AP1455, District 4, 5/2/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The argument Waters made at his refusal hearing wasn’t sufficiently clear to preserve the issue for appeal.
If 2 guys have sex with a woman who becomes pregnant, both better assume parental responsibility
E.M.K. v. Z.T.R., 2018AP1896, District 2, 5/1/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
That’s the upshot of this court of appeals decision. Before terminating a biological father’s parental rights, there must be a finding that he “failed to assume parental responsibility” under §48.415(6). But what if there is a dispute about whether he is actually the biological father of the child? The court of appeals holds that if only one other guy was having sex with the mother when she became pregnant then the unverified, biological father had “reason to believe” he was in fact the father and should assume parental responsibility for the child.
Court of appeals addresses its jurisdiction over order denying only part of a postconviction motion
State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .
¶1 We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.
April 2019 publication list
On April 24, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following decisions:
Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16 (involuntary medication of committed prisoners)
Brown County Human Services v. B.P. & T.F., 2019 WI App 18 (requirements for pleading “abandonment” under § 48.415; summary judgment reversed)
Admission of other acts evidence and sufficiency of evidence for homicide conviction affirmed
State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2018AP952-CR, 4/30, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The State charged Rivera with a homicide and an attempted homicide that occurred in 2015. Before trial, it moved to introduce “other acts” evidence–a homicide that Rivera committed in 1997. The trial court tentatively denied the motion. But then Rivera’s counsel made a “strategic” decision to offer the evidence as part of his defense. So, as you might guess, the appellate challenge regarding the admission of this evidence failed.