On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Sheboygan County v. M.J.M., 2020AP1744, 6/9/21, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is new. M.J.M. appealed a recommitment order which expired during the course of his appeal. The usual kerfuffle regarding mootness ensued but this time (unlike here and here) the court of appeals acknowledged that the issue of whether recommitment may be dismissed as moot was pending before SCOW in Sauk v. S.A.M, and so reached the merits of this case. It then found sufficient evidence of dangerousness based on threats M.J.M. made during his expiring commitment and because of what he would do if treatment were withdrawn.

State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2021 WI App 46, state’s petition for review granted 9/14/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 58; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals gives the affirmative defense in § 939.46(1m) for victims of human trafficking and child sex trafficking its ordinary, common-sense meaning, and rejects the crabbed reading given the statute by the circuit court.

State v. Roy C. O’Neal, 2020AP1270, 6/2/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A person who’s been indefinitely committed under ch. 980 is entitled to a discharge trial if he can show … well, er, nobody really knows what he has to show. In State v. Hager, our supreme court failed to reach a majority for any view on the statute (while arguably striking down the court of appeals’ attempt at a gloss). Given the absence of an ascertainable rule, it’s not too surprising that we get incoherent decisions like this one. What is a little surprising is the court of appeals’ decision to “treat [Hager‘s] lead opinion as controlling” on one aspect of the statute’s meaning. That was a three-justice lead opinion; four other justices disagreed on the point. Arguably. Is the court of appeals here treating a supreme court minority view as binding?

On May 26, 2021, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related opinions:

State v. Keandrae J. Reed, 2020AP1921-CR, District 1, 6/2/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After being convicted of misdemeanor theft, Reed was placed on probation and given the chance for expungement. While he successfully discharged from probation, he isn’t entitled to expungement because he didn’t do enough to pay restitution to have “successfully completed” his sentence as required by § 973.015(1m)(b).

State v. Billy Joe Cannon, 2019AP2296-CR, District 1, 5/25/21 (not recommended for publication; case activity (including briefs)

In 2009, the State charged Cannon with conspiracy to deliver cocaine on Nov. 10, 2005. In 2011, a jury acquitted him. Six weeks later, the State filed new charges alleging that Cannon conspired to deliver cocaine on March 4, 2008 through March 24, 2008. This time, a jury found him guilty. On appeal, Cannon argued that the 2009 and 2011 conspiracy charges concerned a single, continuous conspiracy so the second prosecution violated his to be free from double jeopardy. He also argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress wiretap recordings. The court of appeals rejected both claims.

Eau claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014, 5/25/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Last term, SCOW ordered circuit courts deciding recommitment cases to make specific factual findings referencing the standard of dangerousness that supported a person’s recommitment. See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. In J.M.P., the circuit court violated this rule, so the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for additional fact-finding. Unfortunately, this remedy creates significant burdens for people recommitted in violation of D.J.W and due process.

Milwaukee County v. T.L.T, 2020AP426, District 1, 5/18/21 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Two court-appointed examiners failed to file their reports on whether T.L.T. should be recommitted 48 hours before her final hearing. Trial counsel moved to dismiss arguing that the violation of §51.20(10)(b)’s 48-hour rule deprived the circuit court of competency to adjudicate the case.  The circuit court denied the motion, and without the defense’s agreement, adjourned the case so that counsel could review the reports before the hearing. T.L.T. appealed but the court of appeals dismissed her appeal as moot.

State v. Douglas J. Richer, 2019AP2024, 5/18/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Douglas Richer was charged in two related cases in two counties; he reached a deal with the state wherein he’d plead to just one count in Eau Claire and there’d be a joint sentencing recommendation. The plea colloquy was a thorough one; Richer expressed dissatisfaction about various aspects of the prosecution but made it very clear that he wanted to plead no-contest. After a number of clarifications the circuit court eventually accepted the plea and found Richer guilty. During sentencing (which was part of the same hearing as the plea), the prosecutor and the court took umbrage at some of Mr. Richer’s statements and, at the state’s suggestion, the court said it was “withdrawing” Richer’s plea. Richer and his counsel objected, both at that hearing and in a later written motion, but to no avail. Richer eventually entered a much less favorable bargain and received a sentence substantially longer than the one the parties had agreed to recommend.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. S.K., 2021AP158, District 2, 5/12/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Though § 48.424(4) says that if grounds for termination of parental rights are found, “the court shall find the parent unfit,” the circuit court’s failure to utter those words doesn’t make the TPR order invalid.