On Point blog, page 35 of 262
COA again rejects challenges to TPR
Portage County DH & HS v. S.Z. & C.Z., 2022AP1352-1355, 11/17/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case is the companion of C.Z. & S.Z., decided two weeks ago. C.Z. is the father of the four children at issue; S.Z., the appellant here, is the mother. The opinion here is pretty much a remix of the opinion in the earlier case; both parents raise similar issues and the court similarly rejects them.
COA rejects slew of challenges to theft conviction
State v. Jeffrey L. Blabaum, 2022AP111, 11/10/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Blabaum texted his ex and told her to meet him in Dodgeville to retrieve a few personal items she’d left behind when she moved out of the home they shared in Tennessee. He also sent a picture of one of the items, a bench, which appeared to be sitting in a trailer. His text specified that she should “Come alone.”
COA rejects challenges to TPR
Portage County DH & HS v. C.Z & S.Z., 2022AP1249-1252; 11/3/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.Z. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his four children. The court of appeals affirms.
Car idling in “highly problematic” area after dark + glassy red eyes = reasonable suspicion
Waupaca County v. Hunter Ja Dean Wheelock, 2022AP860, 11/3/2022 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An sheriff’s deputy saw Wheelock and another man sitting in a car parked on the side of a dead-end road in Waupaca County. This particular road was apparently in a “highly problematic” are of that county where young men “engage[] in disorderly behavior and underage drug use and drinking parties.” When the deputy pulled up next to the vehicle, he rolled down his window, as did Wheelock. The deputy asked Wheelock and the passenger what they were up to, and they said they were looking for a place to go sledding. The deputy said he observed “glassy, red, and watery eyes.” This, says the court of appeals, was enough for reasonable suspicion (as a result of the stop Wheelock was charged with OWI).
Defense win! Another ch. 51 recommitment tossed for insufficient evidence of dangerousness
Marathon County v. T.J.M., 2022AP623, 11/8/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Trevor” appealed an order recommitting him for 12 months because (1) the circuit court orally failed to indicate a standard of dangeorusness per Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient under either the 1st or 3rd standards. He prevailed on the latter argument. The opinion is helpful to lawyers defending clients against recommitment under these standards.
COA holds court may decide defendant’s competency without an expert’s opinion
State v. Donald L. White, 2020AP275-CR, 11/3/2022, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
We hope SCOW reviews this decision. An examiner opined that White was competent to proceed under §971.14 but refused to give her opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty. In fact, she thought White should be observed longer. The trial court excluded the examiner’s report and found White competent without it. The court of appeals affirmed.
Search of socks and shoes for weapon was fine; so was subsequent search of car
State v. James Timothy Genous, 2019AP435-CR, 11/1/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2020 the court of appeals held that police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to stop Genous to investigate whether he was selling drugs. The supreme court reversed and sent the case back to the court of appeals to address the lawfulness of the searches of Genous’s shoes and socks and his car. Over a dissent, the court of appeals holds they were.
Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in waiving juvenile to adult court
State v. K.J.P., 2022AP807, District 2, 11/2/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects K.J.P.’s arguments that the circuit court erred in deciding to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and allow him to be prosecuted in adult court.
Decision to waive juvenile into adult court valid despite court’s misunderstanding about juvenile court dispositions
State v. M.N., Jr., 2022AP855, District 1, 11/1/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court decided to waive M.N. (“Max”) into adult court based in part on the belief that any juvenile court supervision and services would end when M.N. turned 18 in 6 months. (¶8). But as the state concedes, juvenile court dispositions can extend beyond the juvenile’s 18th birthday. (¶16). The court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s erroneous belief was harmless.
Adding new charges to information was proper and didn’t taint defendant’s decision to plead guilty
State v. Etter L. Hughes, 2021AP1834-CR, District 1, 11/1/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Hughes’s claim that she should be allowed to withdraw her pleas to four counts of child abuse on the grounds that the state improperly amended the information to add more charges against her because there was no independent factual basis for those charges and because two of the counts were multiplicitous under § 948.03(5)(c).