On Point blog, page 15 of 485
COA: Driver misinformed he would be charged with first-offense OWI did not have right to refuse breath test; Ignition Interlock statute does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause when applied to out-of-state resident.
State v. Sharpe, 2021AP1543 & 2022AP307, 9/24/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity here and here
COA determines defendant arrested for OWI did not meet burden to show that he was unable to make knowing and intelligent choice about submitting to breath test when officers misinformed him that he would be charged with a first-offense OWI. COA rejects facial and as-applied challenge to IID statute based on Dormant Commerce Clause.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI first conviction
Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.
COA finds officer did not intentionally or recklessly include false information in affidavit in support of search warrant; circuit court’s order suppressing evidence reversed.
State v. Mark T. Solheim, 2024AP239, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In its decision reversing the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant for a blood draw, the Court of Appeals reminds that Franks and its Wisconsin counterpart Anderson require defendants challenging the veracity of an affidavit in support of a search warrant to do more than show the affidavit contained false information, but also that the officer knew the information was false at the time it was asserted and included it intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
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.
COA: Plea to grounds for TPR entered knowingly, despite circuit court misstating burden of proof that would apply at disposition.
State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.
COA: Expert evidence not necessary to continue protective placement under Ch. 55.
Ozaukee County v. S.S., 2024AP759, District II, 9/11/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In determining whether to continue protective placement under Chapter 55, the County does not need to present an expert witness to establish an individual continues to meet the criteria for placement, and the circuit court may rely on the entire record – not just the record at the annual review hearing – to find grounds to continue placement.
In HUGE defense win, COA emphasizes that obtaining an involuntary med order is no walk in the park for the State
State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, 9/10/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity
In a recommended-for-publication decision, COA wholly endorses all of J.D.B.’s arguments requiring a high burden of proof when the State seeks an involuntary medication order in order to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Along the way, COA offers a bevy of helpful holdings that are also applicable outside of this highly-specialized practiced area.
COA: TPR defendant not misled regarding burden of proof at disposition hearing during plea colloquy
State v. N.H., 2024AP597, District I, 9/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.W. forecloses N.H’s TPR appeal that his plea was involuntary because the circuit court misled him regarding the burden of proof at the dispositional phase.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.