On Point blog, page 31 of 487
Defense Win! COA rejects state’s overly expansive bail jumping prosecution
State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2022AP658-659, 2022AP661-663, 9/19/23, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The key takeaway from this soon to be published court of appeals decision may seem obvious and inarguable, but as we’ll see below, the state pursued and the circuit court blessed what would have been a massive expansion of the most commonly charged crime in the state of Wisconsin: bail jumping.
Circuit court properly ordered parent to comply with recommendations from out of state psychosexual evaluation in CHIPS matter
Manitowoc County v. M.B., 2023AP163-164, 9/20/23, District II(one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying a deferential standard of review, COA holds that the circuit court did not err when it ordered a parent to comply with an out-of-state psychosexual evaluation/assessment as a condition of return.
Defense Win! COA reverses Ch. 51 extension order in must-read decision on D.J.W. requirements
Waupaca County v. J.D.C., 2023AP961, 9/14/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another big defense win, COA clarifies the two requirements imposed on circuit courts by Langlade County v. D.J.W. and provides a roadmap for future challenges.
Defense Win! COA reverses 51 extension order and accompanying involuntary med order in defense-friendly decision notwithstanding subject’s threats of decapitation
Washington County H.S.D. v. Z.A.Y., 2023AP447, 9/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a big defense win, COA reverses a commitment and accompanying medication order due to the circuit court’s failure to make specific findings.
COA affirms initial commitment order; expresses critical thoughts as to “flood” of 51 appeals and hints at a renewed willingness to find at least some appeals moot
Winnebago County v. C.H., 2023AP505, 8/30/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this Ch. 51 appeal, COA swats aside familiar 51 arguments, expresses its frustration with a “flood” of Ch. 51 appeals and, with approving citation to a dissent from SCOW, hints that we may not have heard the last of the mootness doctrine in COA with respect to 51 appeals.
COA affirms TPR, rejects father’s “love of his children” argument
State v. R.T., 2023AP1095 & 2023AP1096, District I, 9/12/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
R.T. (“Richard”) pled no contest to grounds but disputed whether his parental rights should be terminated at disposition. Specifically, Richard argued that “there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated.” The court of appeals disagrees, noting “there was ample support in the record for the court’s decision.” (Op., ¶15).
COA upholds contempt finding against defense lawyer in CHIPS matter
David Patton v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County, 2023AP809-FT & 2023AP810-FT, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In an appeal displaying the extreme deference accorded to the circuit court’s contempt finding, COA defers to the circuit court’s decision to order a $100 contempt sanction against a lawyer in a CHIPS matter.
COA rejects multiple challenges to first-offense OWI and refusal convictions and affirms
City of Whitewater v. Douglas E. Kosch, 2022AP800, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
Although Kosch throws the kitchen sink at his OWI and refusal convictions, COA methodically works through his myriad challenges on a path toward affirmance.
Defense Win! COA rejects “case manager exception” to hearsay rules and reverses recommitment
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.
COA skirts A.G. claim in TPR appeal based on its reading of the record, applies usual deference to circuit court’s termination order
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.