On Point blog, page 22 of 263
COA rejects argument that margin of error undermined sufficiency of evidence for PAC conviction
Columbia County v. Carter Ray Smits, 2023AP241, 12/7/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the analyst’s testimony that, given the margin of error for the lab result, it was “equally likely” Smits was under as opposed to over the legal limit, COA affirms.
COA rejects sufficiency and erroneous exercise of discretion challenges in TPR appeal
State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.
COA rejects kitchen sink approach in appeal of multi-child TPR
State v. T.J., 2023AP1239-1242, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a battery of legal challenges, COA swiftly and efficiently marches toward affirmance in this TPR appeal.
COA upholds circuit court’s decision to exclude defendant’s proffered evidence regarding field sobriety tests at PAC trial
State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
COA rejects loss of competency claim in protective placement appeal
Racine County v. B.L.M., 2023AP757, 11/22/23, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a creative challenge to a continued protective placement order, COA rejects any argument that the circuit court lost competency by failing to timely reappoint a GAL in this protective placement appeal.
COA applies and rejects Jodie W. based challenge to “continuning denial” based TPR order
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., 2023AP1229-1232, 11/16/23, District IV (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In Kenosha Cnty. DHHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, ¶56, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, the court overturned a TPR order premised on a parent’s failure to meet “an impossible condition of return, without consideration of any other relevant facts and circumstances particular to the parent.” R.H.H. argued that he was likewise subject to an “impossible” condition of return because the dispositional order that denied him placement or visitation with his four children required him to complete sex offender treatment and domestic violence programming. The court rejects his due process-based claim, for multiple reasons, including that R.H.H., failed to introduce evidence to support his assertions that his confinement in prison or his pending criminal appeal made it “impossible” for him to meet his conditions of return. (Op., ¶21).
COA holds there’s nothing wrong with sending kids to a juvenile prison that, legally speaking, shouldn’t exist
State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.
Parent entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claim that circuit court miscommunicated burden of proof in TPR plea colloquy
State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.
Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W.
Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms.
COA remands for “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing
State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).