On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Jeffrey S. Wein, 2021AP1696-98, 9/7/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publications) case activity (including briefs)

Wein appeals convictions of three civil offenses arising from what the state says was his driving of a pontoon boat while he was drunk. The only issue for each charge is whether he, rather than someone else on the boat, was driving.

State v. Randaro V. Jones, 2020AP1046, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) 9/7/22, case activity (including briefs)

This is not an OWI case; rather, it’s an appeal from a conviction of recklessly endangering safety by using a firearm while intoxicated. But the blood test that led to this charge came as a result of an arrest for OWI-first, so the issue is whether there was probable cause for that arrest.

Sheboygan County HSD v. P.W.S., 2022AP426, District 2, 9/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this fact-intensive decision (¶¶2-17), the court of appeals rejects P.W.S.’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that there was a substantial probability he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c.

State v. J.D.C., Jr., 2022AP1028, District 1, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects J.D.C.’s claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding that termination of J.D.C.’s parental rights was in the best interest of his parental rights to C.M.M.

Brown County DHS v. K.Y.T., 2022AP531, District 3, 9/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The county petitioned to terminate K.Y.T.’s parental rights to M.Z. alleging abandonment for both a 3-month and a 6-month period and failure to assume parental responsibility.  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the county proved both grounds.

State v. Brynton C. Foston, 2022AP387, 9/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Foston driving without headlights between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. and activated his emergency lights. Foston didn’t stop. He accelerated, pulled into his driveway, and stumbled as he tried to reach his back door. The officer started giving commands, and Foston, who had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech became argumentative.

Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP606-FT, 9/7/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Winnebago County dumped 550 pages of discovery on counsel 2 hours and 15 minutes before “Paul’s” recommitment hearing, so he requested a adjournment. “Denied!” said the circuit court because §51.20(10)(e) allows only 1 adjournment, which had already been used. If the SPD had appointed counsel sooner, this wouldn’t have happened. On appeal, Paul argued that the court misread the statute, and he can’t control the appointment process. He also argued that the county failed to prove that the examiner gave him a “reasonable explanation” of the “particular medication” prescribed for him per §51.61(1)(g)(4) and Outagamie County v. Melanie L. The court of appeals affirmed.

State v. D.T., 2022AP909, 8/23/22, District 1 (oen-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.T. showed up late for his Zoom TPR trial. It had been set for 9:00; D.T. appeared at 11:00 and said he was having eye trouble that kept him from logging in. The circuit court defaulted him and declined to vacate that default. The court of appeals affirms, noting that D.T. had missed other hearings.

Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2021AP1955 & 2022AP102, 8/30/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a double defense win! You might even call it a quadruple defense win! The court of appeals consolidated “Chris’s” appeals from his initial commitment order and his recommitment order. It reversed his initial commitment order because (1) the circuit court violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient. It reversed the recommitment order because (3) the circuit court’s fact findings were clearly erroneous, and (4) all the county proved was that if treatment were withdrawn Chris would engage in the same conduct that was insufficient to support the initial commitment.

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2022AP251, 8/31/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W. requires a circuit to make specific factual findings with reference to the dangerousness standard that its recommitment order is based upon.  The circuit court failed to follow D.J.W. but the court of appeals affirmed because the circuit court’s words and the county’s closing argument supposedly made it clear that they were relying on the second and fifth standards of dangerousness.