On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Stuart W. Topping, 2018AP318, 2/6/18, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including brief)

You don’t see this very often. Topping, represented by counsel, filed an initial brief. The State never responded. That might have been cause for summary reversal. But here Topping’s challenge to the circuit court’s finding that he refused to submit to a breath test after his arrest for OWI failed even though it was unopposed

Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity 

A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.

Milwaukee County v. T.L.R., 2018AP1131, 12/4/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

Here’s an issue of first impression for SCOW. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D. Wis. 1972) established procedural and substantive due process rights for persons undergoing mental commitments. One of those rights is the right to particularized notice of the basis for detention, including, the legal standard upon which the person is detained. Id. at 1092. T.L.R didn’t receive that notice.

Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity

W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate.

On November 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67 (juvenile court’s waiver into adult court binds all future courts)

On October 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63 (defendant consented to search of his computer and had no expectation of privacy in files put on P2P file sharing network)

State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2019 WI App 4; petition for review granted 6/11/19, reversed, 2020 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)

Neill pleaded to an OWI-3rd, which has a minimum fine of $600. Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)3. His plea came with two statutory enhancers: the one for having a BAC over .25 (Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)3.), and the one for having a child in a car (§ 346.65(2)(f)2.). The former quadruples the minimum fine, and the latter doubles it. So, what’s the minimum fine?

State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.

State v. Steven L. Buckingham, 2017AP1852-CR, 12/4/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs).

When the court of appeals’ dismisses an appellant’s arguments on the grounds that they are “conclusory,” it’s always wise to check the briefs. In this case,  Buckingham filed a fully-developed, well-organized 42-page brief in chief presenting 5 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim for post-conviction discovery.

State v. R.H., 2018AP1827, District 1, 12/4/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The standard of review doomed this appeal, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that R.H. failed to assume parental responsibility during the grounds phase of a TPR.