On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. R.T., 2023AP1095 & 2023AP1096, District I, 9/12/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

R.T. (“Richard”) pled no contest to grounds but disputed whether his parental rights should be terminated at disposition. Specifically, Richard argued that “there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated.” The court of appeals disagrees, noting “there was ample support in the record for the court’s decision.” (Op., ¶15). 

David Patton v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County, 2023AP809-FT & 2023AP810-FT, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

In an appeal displaying the extreme deference accorded to the circuit court’s contempt finding, COA defers to the circuit court’s decision to order a $100 contempt sanction against a lawyer in a CHIPS matter.

City of Whitewater v. Douglas E. Kosch, 2022AP800, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

Although Kosch throws the kitchen sink at his OWI and refusal convictions, COA methodically works through his myriad challenges on a path toward affirmance.

Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements to a crisis worker and a police officer, the county failed to call either direct witness to Zeb’s statements and instead relied on two witnesses who read about Zeb’s history. While the circuit court relied on a case manager’s testimony because “this is what case managers are supposed to do” and “to me, that’s an exception to any of the hearsay rules,” the court of appeals disagrees.

State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.

State v. Jeffrey S. Clemons, 2020AP1450-CR, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).

Applying an almost-insurmountable standard of review, COA concludes there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that Clemons violated an obstructing ordinance.

Waukesha County DHHS v. M.S., 2022AP2065, District 2, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

M.S. (“Martin”) spent nearly 22 years committed under Chapter 51. In 2021, the county switched course and sought and received a permanent guardianship and protective placement under Chapters 54 and 55. Martin challenged whether he was a proper subject for protective placement, relying “quite heavily” on Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. The court of appeals refers to Martin’s argument as a “red herring” and affirms, holding that the county met its burden to prove Martin was a proper subject for protective placement under Chapter 55. (Op., ¶6).

Price County v. C.W., 2023AP18-FT, District III, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the specific facts of this case, COA holds that the County was not required to call a medical expert at “Clara’s” protective placement hearing and affirms.

State v. Michael A. Wilson, 2022AP1099, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Despite some procedural quirks, the Court of Appeals wastes no time in affirming what turns out to be a relatively straightforward refusal conviction.

State v. William J. Buffo, 2023AP302 & 2023AP303, 8/31/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This pro se appeal stems from two criminal cases, but the opinion concerns an order from the circuit court that set “parameters for Buffo’s future filings.” In short, the circuit court entered an order that barred Buffo from filing any further motions and required any potentially “legally-valid” postconviction motions to be screened by a “Dane County judge” before any filing from Buffo would be accepted. While noting that it could dismiss Buffo’s arguments on appeal as undeveloped, the court reaches the merits and upholds the circuit court’s order.