On Point blog, page 15 of 266
COA: Evidence sufficient to affirm verdict finding grounds to terminate parental rights; cir. ct. did not erroneously exercise discretion in terminating rights.
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.
COA holds that juvenile interrogated in “closet size” room by SRO was not in custody; finds evidentiary error harmless, and affirms
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.
Default judgment for failing to appear at TPR hearings affirmed.
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.
COA rejects argument that circuit court made incorrect dispositional findings and affirms
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.
COA affirms circuit court’s refusal to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at respondent’s trial to terminate parental rights because respondent not incarcerated when conditions of return were imposed.
Fond du Lac County Dept. of Social Services v. T.P.W., Jr., 2024AP553, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision refusing to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at T.P.W.’s trial to terminate his parental rights because he was incarcerated two months after conditions for return were ordered and his incarceration was not sole basis he failed to meet conditions.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.
COA reverses order to suppress because driver of vehicle not seized; dissent disputes reasonable person surrounded in vehicle by police would feel free to leave.
State v. Kahreem Rashah Wilkins, Sr., 2023AP1385-CR, 10/8/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting Kahreem Wilkins’ motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. The majority found that Wilkins was not seized when police approached the vehicle and saw a firearm in plain view, while the dissent concluded a reasonable person surrounded in his vehicle by four officers would not feel free to leave.
COA rejects challenges to TPR order and affirms
Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.
COA: Driver misinformed he would be charged with first-offense OWI did not have right to refuse breath test; Ignition Interlock statute does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause when applied to out-of-state resident.
State v. Sharpe, 2021AP1543 & 2022AP307, 9/24/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity here and here
COA determines defendant arrested for OWI did not meet burden to show that he was unable to make knowing and intelligent choice about submitting to breath test when officers misinformed him that he would be charged with a first-offense OWI. COA rejects facial and as-applied challenge to IID statute based on Dormant Commerce Clause.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI first conviction
Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.