On Point blog, page 14 of 264
COA rejects constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.
COA rejects challenges to 51 commitment, involuntary medication orders
Brown County v. L.M.R., 2023AP2314, District III, 8/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects all of L.M.R.’s challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this Chapter 51 case given some less-than favorable facts.
COA agrees with circuit court that while attorney may have made improper promises, defendant’s “unclean hands” prohibit plea withdrawal
State v. Terron Anthony Clayborn, 2023AP283-CR, 8/20/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In a case presenting a common postconviction fact pattern alleging an improper promise by counsel, COA affirms despite postconviction testimony largely corroborating the defendant’s account.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence at refusal hearing; although officer’s statements to defendant during traffic stop were relevant, they were inadmissible when offered through another officer without personal knowledge of statements.
State v. Rodriguez, 2024AP481, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude relevant, but inadmissible, evidence at refusal hearing because witness lacked personal knowledge.
COA: Evidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances sufficient due to reasonable inference
State v. Joseph B. Venable, 2023AP1367, 8/15/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court judgment convicting Venable of first offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), due to his use of prescription medications.
COA: Reports of domestic incident justified stopping vehicle as community caretaking function; extending stop to perform field sobriety tests permitted based on reasonable suspicion of OWI.
State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence. She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.
COA affirms discretionary termination order under deferential standard of review
State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.
COA rejects attack on discretionary termination order under well-settled precedent
Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying TPR defendant’s request for new counsel.
Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.
COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.
City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.