On Point blog, page 18 of 266
Advice to admit to “reasonable effort” not structural or prejudicial error in TPR trial
Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.
COA affirms denial of suppression motion, but reminds state of basic briefing rules
State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.
A trio of defense wins: Circuit court properly exercised discretion in ruling on motions for DPA in juvenile cases
State v. J.A.N., 2023AP1108, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. Z.D.S., 2023AP1109, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. S.R., 2023AP1110, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a series of appeals seemingly aimed at the discretionary decisions of an individual circuit court judge, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision to dismiss and refer these juvenile prosecutions for a DPA under a well-settled standard of review.
COA affirms orders denying return of property petition and imposing fine
State v. Andre L. Jones, 2023AP1535-CR, 2023AP1536-CR, 2023AP1537-CR and 2023AP1538-CR, 5/16/24, District IV(not recommended for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of an order denying a motion for return of property, COA rejects a novel statutory construction argument by adhering to what it views as binding precedent.
Circuit court properly granted summary judgment based on failure to respond to requests for admission and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to respond
Kenosha County DC&FS v. A.G.O., 2023AP1305, 1307 & 1308, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR case involving allegations of ineffective assistance, COA affirms based on hard-to-overcome legal standards.
Despite serious criticisms of doctor’s testimony, COA affirms 51 extension and involuntary med orders given contents of report
Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.
Defense Win! COA reverses $40,000 restitution order as sanction for state’s abandonment of appeal
State v. Paul R. Noble, 2023AP1444-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
While Noble’s arguments on appeal appear to have substantial merit, the court of appeals declines to address the merits because the state abandoned the appeal and thereby conceded that “Noble’s arguments are correct.”
Defense Win! Circuit court’s failure to “personally ascertain” factual basis for pleas entitles defendant to Bangert hearing
State v. Megan E. Zeien, 2023AP1787-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
If you’ve ever wondered whether you have a Bangert claim concerning a circuit court’s failure to “ascertain personally whether a factual basis exists to support [your client’s] plea,” this unpublished but citable decision is worth a read. Unfortunately, the decision is a bit unclear about how exactly the state may seek to establish that Zeien’s pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at an evidentiary hearing. See Op., ¶¶19, 22.
COA holds parent failed to establish deficient performance in TPR appeal alleging IAC
Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.M., 2023AP1643-45, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case demonstrating the difficult hurdles litigants must clear in order to prove deficient performance, COA affirms an underlying order terminating “Mary’s” parental rights.
Defense Win! Insufficient evidence of dangerousness under first or second standards of dangerousness
Marinette County v. C.R.J., 2023AP1695-FT, 4/16/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.R.J. (“Caleb”) challenged his commitment on two fronts: (1) the circuit court’s failure to comply with Langlade County v. D.J.W.’s “specific factual findings” mandate and (2) the county failed to introduce sufficient evidence of dangerousness under either standard. After critiquing the circuit court’s factual findings, the court agrees with Caleb that insufficient evidence existed to involuntarily commit him.