On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements to a crisis worker and a police officer, the county failed to call either direct witness to Zeb’s statements and instead relied on two witnesses who read about Zeb’s history. While the circuit court relied on a case manager’s testimony because “this is what case managers are supposed to do” and “to me, that’s an exception to any of the hearsay rules,” the court of appeals disagrees.

State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.

State v. Jeffrey S. Clemons, 2020AP1450-CR, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).

Applying an almost-insurmountable standard of review, COA concludes there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that Clemons violated an obstructing ordinance.

Waukesha County DHHS v. M.S., 2022AP2065, District 2, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

M.S. (“Martin”) spent nearly 22 years committed under Chapter 51. In 2021, the county switched course and sought and received a permanent guardianship and protective placement under Chapters 54 and 55. Martin challenged whether he was a proper subject for protective placement, relying “quite heavily” on Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. The court of appeals refers to Martin’s argument as a “red herring” and affirms, holding that the county met its burden to prove Martin was a proper subject for protective placement under Chapter 55. (Op., ¶6).

Price County v. C.W., 2023AP18-FT, District III, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the specific facts of this case, COA holds that the County was not required to call a medical expert at “Clara’s” protective placement hearing and affirms.

State v. Michael A. Wilson, 2022AP1099, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Despite some procedural quirks, the Court of Appeals wastes no time in affirming what turns out to be a relatively straightforward refusal conviction.

State v. William J. Buffo, 2023AP302 & 2023AP303, 8/31/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This pro se appeal stems from two criminal cases, but the opinion concerns an order from the circuit court that set “parameters for Buffo’s future filings.” In short, the circuit court entered an order that barred Buffo from filing any further motions and required any potentially “legally-valid” postconviction motions to be screened by a “Dane County judge” before any filing from Buffo would be accepted. While noting that it could dismiss Buffo’s arguments on appeal as undeveloped, the court reaches the merits and upholds the circuit court’s order.

Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the examination is either (1) at the individual’s expense  or (2) “if indigent and with approval of the court hearing the petition, at the reasonable expense of the individual’s county of legal residence…” As a matter of first impression, the court of appeals holds that individuals seeking such an evaluation must satisfy an implied and unspecified burden of proof to establish indigency before the individual may obtain an additional examination at county expense. (Op., ¶¶8-9).

State v. Kale K. Keding, 2022AP1373-CR & 2022AP1374-CR, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In an eminently readable and refreshing opinion, COA methodically works through a battery of counterarguments to hold that police could not use statements Keding made after having been asked about a tissue he discarded into a wastebasket while in police custody.

State v. Roger A. Wolf, Jr., 2022AP1539, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An responding officer encountered Wolf, head bloodied, near a crashed motorcycle and a dead deer. Wolf said he’d been “drinking all day” but that an unidentified third person, not on scene, had been driving the bike when it hit the deer. He argues the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test.