On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Rock Count v. H.V., 2022AP1585-FT, 1/20/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is an appeal from a ch. 51 recommitment under the 2nd standard– dangerousness to others. H.V.’s main argument was that the circuit court erroneously relied on hearsay to find that he is dangerous when not committed. The court of appeals disagreed and further found the county’s evidence sufficient to support the commitment.

Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2022AP1207, 1/18/23, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal involves a recommitment under the 3rd standard of dangerousness. G.M.M. argued that the county presented insufficient evidence of both mental illness and dangerousness. She also argued that the circuit court failed to make the findings required under Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶59, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.  The court of appeals rejected all 3 claims.

State v. Ahmed A.M. Al Bawi, 2021AP432-CR, District 3, 1/18/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Al Bawi’s trial attorney was not ineffective in advising him about the immigration consequences of his plea.

State v. Kelly A. Monson, 2022AP1438-CR, District 2, 1/18/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

There was reasonable suspicion to detain Monson and have her perform field sobriety tests.

County of Winnebago v. Ryan C. Kaltenbach, 2022AP794, District 2, 1/18/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Though this is a “close case” (¶¶4, 11), the facts are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to detain Kaltenbach to have him perform field sobriety tests.

Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP603, 1/11/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal involves an important, recurring issue. Must the circuit court conduct a colloquy to determine whether the subject of a ch. 51 commitment proceeding knowingly and voluntarily stipulates to a commitment and medication? The court of appeals holds that there is no colloquy requirement, and there shouldn’t be one. The subject of ch. 51 commitment is presumed competent. If she says she’s stipulating to a commitment and medication, then the circuit court can (1) presume she’s making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision, and (2) find her dangerous without specifying a standard of dangerousness.

State v. Clinton D. Clucas, 2022AP965, 12/30/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a pretrial state’s appeal under Wis. Stat. § 974.05(1)(d)2.. The trial court excluded three of the four prior incidents the state proposed to offer as evidence in Clucas’s trial for disorderly conduct with the domestic abuse enhancer. The court of appeals affirms, concluding the state’s proffered “permissible purpose” for the evidence is really just propensity by another name.

State v. Tisha Lee Love, 2022AP1422, 12/30/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Love appeals a jury verdict rendered against her for driving 87 miles per hour in a 55 zone.

State v. Thor S. Lancial, 2022AP146-CR, 1/5/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Lancial of 10 counts of possession of child pornography. On appeal, he argued that (1) the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that the police seized during their search of his cell phone. The court of appeals reversed on the second point and held that the pornography had to be excluded on remand.

County of Monroe v. Kling, 2022AP339, 12/30/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Section 346.70(1) governs a driver’s duty to report a car accident. When the accident does not cause injury or death, the driver must report the “total damage to property owned by any one person. . . to an apparent value of $1,000 or more” to the authorities by “the quickest means of communication.”  There are no published opinions interpreting and applying this language. This decision construes it against drivers and affirms the civil forfeiture entered against Kling.