On Point blog, page 10 of 264
In potentially consequential 51 appeal, COA suggests DJW errors can be cured during postconviction proceedings
Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI 1st and refusal convictions
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.
Defense wins (in part) when COA reverses involuntary medication order, but affirms extending commitment under Ch. 51.
Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication. The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.
Defense Win! COA remands for new CHIPS trial
State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.
Defense Win! Evidence insufficient to continue ch. 55 protective placement orders
Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).
COA: Suppressing evidence of blood draw not viable remedy even if conditions of confinement were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Holly J. Grimslid, 2024AP954, 1/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA holds that, even if officer’s actions denying the defendant’s request to use the bathroom while he waited to obtain warrant for a blood draw were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, suppressing evidence of the blood draw is not a viable remedy.
COA rejects challenges to continued protective placement and affirms
Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.
COA affirms order authorizing involuntary medication under ch. 51 where, contrary to the evidence, appellant denies mental illness.
Dane County v. M.A.A., 2024AP1589, 12/27/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntarily administering medication to M.A.A. in light of evidence that M.A.A. denies he has a mental illness.
COA affirms juvenile delinquency order in sufficiency challenge
State v. D.Y., 2024AP710, 12/26/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Daniel” appeals from the circuit court’s order adjudicating him as a juvenile delinquent, on the basis of a second-degree sexual assault of a child offense. (¶1). He contends that the state failed to prove the intent element, specifically, sexual gratification or arousal from the contact. (¶10). The COA concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s decision and affirms.
Defense Wins: COA reverses Chapter 51 commitment for insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
Monroe County v. M.C., 2024AP924, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51 where the court did not make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion that M.C. was dangerous, as required by D.J.W.