On Point blog, page 144 of 261
Waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction over 15-year-old upheld
State v. T.D.M., 2015AP2289, 4/20/16, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.D.M. was charged with burglary and theft, as party to a crime, and obstructing an officer. The circuit court waived him into to adult court mostly because his “pattern of living” was more like an adult’s than a juvenile’s. That is, he was not reliant upon his mother for large periods of time. His whereabouts were unknown for at least 3 months in 2014. He allegedly had fathered a child. He did not attend school or avail himself of services. And he repeatedly violated curfew and came and went as he pleased. See ¶14.
Circuit court properly entered default judgment against mom at the grounds phase of TPR proceeding
Waukesha County DH&HS v. K.R.G., 2016AP222, 4/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals here holds that a mom’s failure to follow court orders and failure to make court appearances were egregious enough to justify a default finding of grounds for terminating her parental rights even though she asserted a “desire” and “determination” to participate in the proceeding.
CHIPS orders satisfied statutory notice requirements
State v. M.K., 2015AP2098, District 1, 4/19/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While the second (and final) extension of M.K.’s original CHIPS dispositional order listed only one of the three conditions M.K. had to meet for return of her son, the original order and first extension listed all three, and that’s good enough in the eyes of the court of appeals to satisfy the requirements of § 48.356(2).
Court of appeals ducks Fourth Amendment question
State v. Gary F. Lemberger, 2015AP1452-CR, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/11/2016, affirmed, 2017 WI 39; case activity (including briefs)
A breathalyzer test is a Fourth Amendment search, and state case law holds that the state may not invite a jury to view a defendant’s refusal to consent to a search as evidence of guilt. So, can a prosecutor argue that a defendant’s refusal to take a breathalyzer shows his guilt? Don’t look to this case for an answer.
Excluding evidence of return of older child harmless in TPR
Jefferson County Department of Human Services v. J.V., 2015AP2622, 2623, & 2624, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
J.V. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three younger children, arguing the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that she had succeeded in having her eldest child returned to her.
TPR orders withstand multiple challenges
State v. C.R.R./State v. M.R., 2015AP1771 & 2015AP1772, District 3, 4/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects various challenges to orders terminating the parental rights C.R.R. and M.R., the mother and father, respectively, of A.M.R.
“Close enough” is good for horseshoes and hand grenades, but not the expungement statute
State v. Lazaro Ozuna, 2015AP1877-CR, 4/13/16, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/13/16, affirmed 2017 WI 64, ; case activity (including briefs)
Even though DOC discharged Ozuna from probation, he didn’t successfully complete his sentence for purposes of the expungement statute because he was cited for underage drinking while he was on probation and therefore violated the court-imposed probation condition that he not consume any alcohol.
Defense win: Neither exigent circumstances nor community caretaker role justified home entry
State v. Michael A. Durham, 2015AP1978-CR, 4/12/2016, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police were dispatched in response to a 6:30 p.m. phone call from a neighbor about unintelligible yelling and “banging” that shook the walls of Durham’s residence. (¶2). After knocking and ringing the doorbell and receiving no response, police simply entered the house, guns drawn, and proceeded toward the stairs, where they encountered Durham. (¶¶3-5). The officers ordered Durham to show his hands, he didn’t, and they tasered him. (¶6). He was charged with resisting an officer, unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence obtained via the warrantless search of his home, and was convicted at trial. (¶1). The court of appeals here reverses the conviction because the suppression motion should have been granted.
Finding of dangerousness to support Chapter 51 commitment affirmed
Outagamie County v. Adam B., 2015AP718, 4/12/16, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court neglected to specify which of the 5 statutory “dangerousness” standards in §51.20(1)(a)2.a-e supported the Ch. 51 commitment of Adam B. But that did not trouble the court of appeals. Given the “de novo” standard of review, it could (and did) decide for itself which statutory “dangerousness” test the facts satisfied.
No error to allow evidence of prior possession of gun like the one used in shooting
State v. Luis Calderon-Encarnacion, Jr., 2014AP2252-CR, 04/12/2016 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Calderon was found guilty at trial of shooting up the house of his child’s mother. The evidence against him included the fact that he was pulled over 20 minutes after the shooting in a vehicle matching an eyewitness description of the shooter’s, with a silver-and-black revolver containing five spent casings concealed in the fuse panel.