On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Richland County DH&HS v. D.M.K., 2022AP2190, District IV, 11/14/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a somewhat rare CHIPS appeal, COA upholds the circuit court’s decision to remove adversary counsel but reverses the court’s order modifying that attorney’s request for fees.

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. A.W., Sr., 2024AP907, District II, 10/30/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA rejects A.W., Sr.’s claims that the circuit court failed to take testimony to support the finding of unfitness when he pled no contest to grounds, and that the court’s decision to terminate his parental rights at disposition was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

State v. Joseph Blankenship, 2024AP791-CR, 11/7/24, District IV (one judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order granting Joseph Blankenship’s motion to suppress because police did not have reasonable suspicion to direct him out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.

State v. Carter Nelson, 2024AP617-CR, 11/6/24, District II (one judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting Carter Nelson’s motion to suppress cocaine seized from his vehicle without a warrant and without probable cause.  The Court held that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in a standard inventory search when Nelson’s vehicle was towed.

State v. M.M.K., 2024AP591-CR, 2024AP592-CR, 2024AP593-CR, 2024AP594-CR, 10/31/24, District IV(1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case which continues a new trend in appeals of involuntary medication appeals, COA holds that while the circuit court correctly found M.M.K. incompetent, it failed to correctly apply Sell in ordering involuntary medication.

Waukesha County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. M.M.M., 2024AP1622, 10/30/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a straightforward case addressing sufficiency of the evidence, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order to terminate M.M.M’s (referred to as Mary) parental rights.  The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding grounds to terminate her parental rights, and the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined terminating Mary’s parental rights to her son (referred to as Neal) was in his best interest.

State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, 10/30/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a “close” suppression appeal, COA confronts a fact pattern arising from the intersection between policing and school discipline, finds that a reasonable 12-year old would have felt free to walk away from interviews with law enforcement and school authorities on school grounds, and finds the repeated injection of inadmissible evidence at the court trial harmless.

Dane County v. L.D.D., 2024AP1267, District IV, 10/24/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating L.D.D.’s parental rights after it entered default judgment when she did not appear at the hearing on grounds to terminate or the disposition hearing.  The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s order denying L.D.D.’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on new evidence.

State v. C.M., 2024AP1416-1418, District I, 10/15/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The parent’s challenge to the court’s discretionary termination decision goes nowhere given the standard of review.