On Point blog, page 29 of 264
COA affirms extension of involuntary mental commitment order, order for involuntary medication, entered in absentia based on its understanding of binding precedent
Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, District II, 7/28/23, petition for review granted 12/12/23; reversed 7/5/24; 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a Chapter 51 case with troubling due process implications, COA is compelled to affirm by virtue of what it believes to be binding precedent.
COA affirms search; disregards “breadcrumb” theory
State v. Ashley Rae Baker, 2022AP1587-CR, District II, 1-judge decision, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
The Fourth Amendment protects against guilt by association by requiring probable cause to arrest or search to be specifically linked to the individual defendant. See State v. Riddle, 192 Wis. 2d 470, 478, 531 N.W.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593 (1948). That probable cause exists to arrest one vehicle occupant does not mean probable cause exists to arrest another.
COA affirms TPR jury verdict based on harmless error analysis
C.T.L. v. M.L.K., 2023AP402, District III, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
The court of appeals confronts two alleged errors stemming from M.L.K.’s TPR jury trial and affirms based on harmless error.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion when it entered an individualized order terminating parental rights of one parent
State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.
Circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying criminal defendant access to juvenile records
Manitowoc County H.S.D. v. T.H., 2022AP1631, District II, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Applying a deferential standard of review, the court of appeals rejects T.H.’s attempts to obtain CPS records he claims are essential to present a complete defense in a related criminal case.
Defense Win! COA holds that circuit court improperly required defendant to reimburse attorney fees related to dismissed case
State v. Aman Deep Singh, 2022AP1202-04, District I, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a somewhat messy pro se appeal, the court of appeals agrees that the circuit court improperly required Singh to reimburse attorney’s fees but rejects his remaining claims.
Defense Win! COA orders protective placement petition dismissed on remand
Department on Aging v. R.B.L., 2022AP1431, District I, 6/27/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In this protective placement appeal raising two interesting issues related to the circuit court’s competency, the court of appeals reverses with instructions to dismiss the underlying petition.
COA rejects IAC claims on deficient performance and prejudice grounds
State v. Julie A. Minnema, 2022AP446-CR, District 4, 6/8/23 (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In an unusually lengthy OWI second appeal, the court rejects Minnema’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims either because Minnema failed to establish deficient performance or because Minnema failed to establish prejudice. (Opinion, ¶1).
State sufficiently proved parent’s pleas were knowing, intelligent and voluntary despite possible misadvice in plea colloquy
State v. S.S., 2022AP1179 & 2022AP1180, District I, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal with a parent alleging a defective plea colloquy, the court of appeals finds that the State proved the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at a postdisposition hearing.
Parent forfeited challenges to competency and jurisdiction in TPR appeal by not objecting to defective service
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.