On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, the Honorable Kori Ashley, Presiding, 2022AP1396-CR, 10/17/23, District I (not eligible for publication); case activity

Although the prosecutor in this case may have conceptualized his decision to defy a court order as an act of civil disobedience necessary to preserve a challenge for appeal, COA disagrees and therefore affirms the circuit court’s order finding him in contempt.

Sauk County D.H.S. v. R.K.M., 2023AP912, 10/12/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.K.M. raised a variety of arguments seeking to challenge the often cited “decompensation” theory for extending a chapter 51 commitment where the subject has (1) made substantial progress while under commitment, (2) engaged in no recent dangerous behavior, and (3) is generally compliant with medication and treatment provided under commitment. However, his challenge runs into the buzzsaw of fears of decompensation and “recurrence of his symptoms.” (Op., ¶¶6-7).

State v. S.A., 2023AP1288-1292, 10/10/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 5 children.

State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to have violated the circuit court’s witness sequestration order. It’s also an easy out where the circuit court’s lack of prejudice determination in denying a mistrial claim is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.

State v. Bryson Keith Williams, 2023AP838, 10/4/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the familiar test for assessing the adequacy of the officer’s reading of the implied consent warnings, COA agrees that Williams’ refusal was unlawful.

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2023AP460, 9/20/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a nice case to know, both for its careful, thorough analysis of a common ch. 51 problem–commitments based entirely or extensively on hearsay–and its collection of other cases analyzing the same issue. The sole witness at D.E.S. (“Dennis”)’s extension hearing was a Dr. Anderson, who had witnessed none of the behaviors she relied on to conclude that Dennis was dangerous, instead reading them from his institutional records. Over objection, the trial court relied on them anyway. The court of appeals now reverses the commitment because absent the hearsay, there was no evidence tending to show that Dennis would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

Manitowoc County v. M.B., 2023AP163-164, 9/20/23, District II(one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying a deferential standard of review, COA holds that the circuit court did not err when it ordered a parent to comply with an out-of-state psychosexual evaluation/assessment as a condition of return.

Waupaca County v. J.D.C., 2023AP961, 9/14/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In another big defense win, COA clarifies the two requirements imposed on circuit courts by Langlade County v. D.J.W. and provides a roadmap for future challenges.

Washington County H.S.D. v. Z.A.Y., 2023AP447, 9/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a big defense win, COA reverses a commitment and accompanying medication order due to the circuit court’s failure to make specific findings.

Winnebago County v. C.H., 2023AP505, 8/30/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this Ch. 51 appeal, COA swats aside familiar 51 arguments, expresses its frustration with a “flood” of Ch. 51 appeals and, with approving citation to a dissent from SCOW, hints that we may not have heard the last of the mootness doctrine in COA with respect to 51 appeals.