On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

Manitowoc County v. K.H., 2020AP2150 and Manitowoc County v. K.R., 2021AP90-93; 4/27/22; District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.R. appealed a December 2020 order instituting permanency plans for his 4 children. His mother also appealed one of the permanency plans. They claimed that they were denied their due process right to meaningful participation in the plan review hearing. The court of appeals gives no specifics.

State v. Dominic A. Caldiero, 2021AP1163-CR, District 4, 4/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

When he drove in 2019, Caldiero was still “subject to” a 2015 court order under § 343.301 (2013-14) restricting his operating privilege to cars with an ignition interlock device (IID) because the time period on that restriction does not begin to run till DOT issues him a driver’s license, and that hadn’t happened as of the date he was driving.

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, 4/26/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hoyle chose to remain silent at his trial for child sexual assault. During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly argued that the testimony from “Hannah” (the complaining witness) was “uncontroverted” and told the jury it had “heard no evidence” and that there was “absolutely no evidence” disputing her account of the alleged sexual assault. Under the circumstances of this case, the court of appeals holds that the prosecutor’s arguments violated Hoyle’s Fifth Amendment rights.

State v. A.P., 2022AP95-97, 4/26/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity

Seems like we went years without a defense win in a TPR appeal. Then–just like that–we get 4 citable defense wins in 9 months. See also this win, this win, and this win! At the disposition stage in A.P.’s case, the circuit court was supposed to consider the 6 “best interests of the children” factors, but it only considered 5. The testimony on the missing factor was conflicting. Thus, the court of appeals reversed this TPR and remanded for further proceedings.

State v. Rodney J. Ofte, 2021AP1302-CR, 4/21/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After the State charged Ofte with OWI 2nd, he moved for suppression because Deputy Paulson had interrogated him in the back of a locked squad car without a Miranda warning. The circuit court suppressed all evidence from that point on–Ofte’s statement and the results of his FSTs and breathalyzer test. The State appealed arguing that Ofte was not in custody for 5th Amendment purposes. The court of appeals disagrees.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. E.C., 2021AP1655, 4/20/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

While “Nina” was married to “John,” she became pregnant with “Eric’s” baby. A court found the baby to be a “child in need of protective services” and gave the standard TPR warning to Nina, but not to Eric.  Afterward, Eric established that he was the baby’s father. When the court terminated his parental rights in this case, he argued that his exclusion from the earlier CHIPS proceeding violated his right to due process and provided “good cause” for failing to establish a substantial relationship with the baby. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.

State v. Bradley C.  Burgess, 2021AP1067-CR, District 4, 4/21/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A traffic stop should last only as long as necessary for the police to complete the “mission” of investigating the traffic infraction that justified the stop, including ordinary inquiries incident to the stop. Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348 (2015); State v. Smith, 2018 WI 2, 379 Wis. 2d 86, 905 N.W.2d 353. Applying that standard here, the court of appeals holds the stop of the car Burgess was riding in wasn’t unreasonably extended by the officer’s asking the passengers for identification and running records checks on them.

Waukesha County v. E.B.V., 2021Ap1910, District 2, 4/20/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the truancy petition filed against E.B.V. because E.B.V. was no longer truant and, after initially contesting the facts of the petition, he entered into a consent decree. J.C.V., one of E.B.V.’s parents,  had also filed motions to dismiss the petition, alleging it was untimely,

State v. S.J., 2022AP160, 4/19/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sharon” pled “no contest” to being an unfit parent, and then the circuit court held that it was in “Danielle’s” best interests to terminate Sharon’s parental rights so that Danielle’s paternal aunt could adopt her. Sharon appealed that decision arguing that the circuit court failed to give sufficient consideration to 1 of the 6 “best interests of the child” factors in §48.426(3).

State v. Michael T. Dewey, 2021AP174-CR, District 4, 4/14/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Dewey was charged with three dozen counts of child sexual assault related crimes alleged to have occurred during various times between 2005 and 2013. He argues the charging periods for most of the counts were “too long and disjointed” to allow him to prepare an adequate defense and that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to jury instructions for five of the counts on the ground that the three non-continuous time periods charged for those counts failed to protect his right to a unanimous verdict. The court of appeals rejects his arguments.