On Point blog, page 110 of 261
An interesting opinion affirming summary judgment on grounds for a TPR
Manitowoc County Human Serv. Dep’t v. J.K., 2017AP2371, 2/21/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
If you handle TPR cases, this opinion is worth reading because the appellant raised creative arguments regarding, for example, the proper legal standard for summary judgment and a court’s ability to take judicial notice of its own records. She also lodged an “as applied” constitutional challenge to §48.415(6) regarding failure to assume parental responsibility. This decision has SCOW potential.
Defendant’s history of controlling and abusing girlfriends admissible as “other acts” evidence
State v. Angus Murray McArthur, 2016AP2315-17-CR, 2/20/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This opinion recounts in detail MacArthur’s controlling, violent behavior toward K.W., the victim in this case, and toward 4 of his previous girlfriends. The lead issues are (1) whether McArthur’s conduct toward the previous girlfriends was admissible as “other acts” evidence, and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when, during the jury trial, a detective read K.W.’s statement which described MacArthur’s “relationship rules” and his escalating violence toward her. The court of appeals answers both questions “no.”
Machner hearing denied on claims for ineffective of assistance of trial counsel
State v. Lee Vang, 2017AP75-77-CR, District 1, 2/20/18,(not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vang argued that his trial was ineffective in failing to object to (1) a police officer’s hearsay testimony about the victim’s statements to him; (2) his own testimony on direct about participating in an illegal street race for money; and (3) the State’s question about the local Fox News station mentioning him on a segment called “Wisconsin’s Most Wanted.” The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny Vang a Machner hearing on the first 2 claims for failure to show prejudice and on the third claim for failure to show deficient performance.
Calls to police about erratic driving gave reasonable suspicion for stop
State v. Angela J. Coker, 2017AP1555, District 2, 2/14/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Coker was charged with OWI after police stopped her car because other drivers called police to report an erratic driver. The court of appeals rejects her claim that the information from the callers wasn’t sufficiently reliable because it was offered anonymously and wasn’t corroborated by the arresting officer’s observations.
Court of Appeals rejects challenge to factual basis for territorial jurisdiction
State v. Erik M. Smith, 2016AP2453-CR, District 3, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The body of Eric Volp, a resident of Michigan when he disappeared, was found in a creek in Marinette County. After a long investigation Smith was eventually charged in Marinette County with killing Volp by running over him with his car and then hiding his corpse and he eventually pleaded guilty to most of the charges. (¶¶2-9). But as the criminal complaint itself acknowledged (¶7), the investigation never resolved whether Volp was killed in Marinette County or in Michigan. Despite that uncertainty the court of appeals holds there was sufficient factual basis to establish Wisconsin had territorial jurisdiction.
Evidence was sufficient to support verdicts for possession of drugs with intent to deliver
State v. Orlando Lloyd Cotton, 2016AP2211-CR, District 1, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Cotton was convicted of being party to the crime of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver and keeping a drug house. He unsuccessfully argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to convict him and that his trial lawyer was ineffective.
Video of battery by juvenile supports trial court’s rejection of self-defense claim
State v. J.D.V., 2017AP1057, District 3, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.V. (given the pseudonym “Joseph” by the court) was adjudged delinquent for punching Thomas, another juvenile, in the head outside of school. The incident was recorded by Charles, another student, using his electronic device. Based primarily on that recording the trial court rejected Joseph’s self-defense claim—rightly so, says the court of appeals.
Evidence was sufficient to show failure to assume parental responsibility
State v. L.M.O., 2017AP1814, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.M.O. argues that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his child D.A.M. He also argues the court’s findings violated his due process rights because they were based on D.A.M.’s out-of-home placement and L.M.O.’s subsequent lack of contact with D.A.M. while a no-contact order was in effect. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
TPR court properly considered whether children had substantial relationship with mother and her family
State v. L.J., 2017AP2380, 2017AP2381, & 2017AP2382, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J. argues the circuit court terminated her parental rights to her children without properly considering whether her children had a substantial relationship with her or her family members. The court of appeals disagrees.
Must a defendant be informed that a guilty plea will result in a loss of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?
State v. Amanda L. Longley, 2017AP659-CR, District 4, 2/8/18 (1-judge opinion. ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here answers this questions “no,” based on SCOW’s recent and narrow reading of Padilla in State v. Le Mere, 2016 WI 41, 368 Wis. 2d 624, 879 N.W.2d 580. See Mike Tobin’s post on Le Mere here). But Wisconsin’s case law is conflicting, suggesting that this issue may be worthy of scrutiny by a higher court.