On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5; case activity

J.R.’s children were placed outside the home pursuant to two CHIPS cases. During the placement, the legislature changed the 4th element for the “continuing CHIPS” ground for termination of parental rights. When the County petitioned to terminate J.R.’s rights, it proceeded under the amended statute. J.R. objected to the retroactive application of the amended statute on statutory and due process grounds.

State v. Jonathan A. Ortiz-Rodriguez, 2018AP2401-CR, District 1, 11/26/19, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged the defendant with repeated sexual assault of a child, which carries a 25-year minimum term of initial confinement. Trial counsel told the defendant that the State had offered to recommend 5 to 8 years if he would plead to one count of child sexual assault.  But then at sentencing the State argued for 20 years IC and 20 years ES.

La Crosse County v. J.M.A., 2018AP1258, 11/21/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.A. appeals his recommitment under ch. 51. He argues the psychiatrist who was the sole witness at his trial provided only conclusory testimony on dangerousness; the court of appeals disagrees.

On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a  petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)

State v.

State v. Z.J., 2019AP1623-1626, District 1, 11/19/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

All TPRs are sad. But this one really highlights the Catch 22 that poverty can create for a parent. Z.J., mother of 4, was struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. The State sought to terminate her parental rights for these and other reasons. But the real issue is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment against her at the grounds phase.

V.A. v. M.W.P., 2019AP1098, District 2, 11/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.A. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of her child’s father, M.W.P., who pled no contest to abandonment. M.V.P. argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering termination because it failed to dismiss the proceeding or give sufficient weight to the fact that V.A.’s husband, M.A., confronted the child’s GAL about his recommendation against termination, telling the GAL he’d “have blood on his hands.” (¶¶3, 13). No erroneous exercise of discretion here, says the court of appeals.

State v. A.L.M., 2019AP1599, 2019AP1600, & 2019AP1601, District 1, 11/19/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After A.L.M. pled no contest to failing to assume parental responsibility, the circuit court terminated his parental rights. The evidence was sufficient to support that conclusion.

State v. Shawn A. Anderson, 2019AP173-CR, District 3, 11/13/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court’s sentencing remarks considered in their entirety showed the court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Anderson to be subject to lifetime supervision under § 939.615.

State v. E.F., 2019AP1559-1561, 11/12/19, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court never uttered the words “best interest of the child” at the dispositional phase of this TPR case. No matter, says the court of appeals, “magical” or “talismanic” words aren’t necessary. The trial court’s decision was “infused with articulated concern” for E.F.’s children. That’s enough. Opinion, ¶¶17-18.

State v. A.C.M., 2018AP2423-2424, 11/12/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.C.M.’s trial lawyer did not call her psychiatrist to testify about her mental health or her medication compliance–evidence that was important to the issue of whether she posed a safety risk to her children. The court of appeals held that even if counsel should have called the doctor, her failure to do so didn’t prejudice A.C.M.