On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Thomas Louis Giegler, 2021AP952-CR, 11/2/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Unbelievable. A jury convicted Geigler of knowing violation of a TRO. The court of appeals now reverses the conviction because the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It remands the case with instructions for the circuit court to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge.

Town of Brookfield v. Martin M. Gonzalez, 2021AP218, District 2, 10/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gonzalez posted some photos on Instagram as a “story,” a series of shorter, more casual, less permanent images or posts than standard posts on a user’s Instagram feed (so we’re told). The first photo showed a ticket to an upcoming movie at a Brookfield cinema. The second showed loose bullets and a hand holding a loaded magazine. The third showed the inside of a darkened movie theater. (¶3). This “story” led to Gonzalez being convicted for violating the municipality’s disorderly conduct ordinance, a conviction the court of appeals now vacates.

State v. Jesse Rogalla, 2019AP1486-CR, 10/26/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

Officer Klieforth was dispatched to a home after someone reported that Rogalla was yelling at a woman inside. Klieforth heard both parties screaming, peeked in a window, saw Rogalla yelling as a woman knelt before him crying “You don’t have to do this” and “Why?” After hearing a loud slap, Klieforth entered without a warrant based on fear for the woman’s safety.

State v. S.T., 2021AP1278-1280, 10/26/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court terminated S.T.’s parental rights to three of her children after she brought one of them (a 5-month old twin) to the hospital with severe burns on his body. S.T. appealed arguing that during the grounds phase of the TPR trial the circuit court erroneously relied on irrelevant evidence–testimony regarding past  CHIPS and TPR proceedings that predated the births of these three children.

State v. Kyle M. Kleinschmidt, 2020AP881-Cr, 10/13/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kleinschmidt’s vehicle had two brake lights in good working order, but it also had a high-mount brake light that was not working.  An officer stopped him due to the defective light and established that he was operating a vehicle while his license was revoked.  Kleinschmidt argues that the officer, who based the stop on §347.14(1), lacked reasonable suspicion. Plus the correct law, § TRANS 305.15 (re high mounted brake lights), exceeds the authority granted in §347.15 and is thus invalid.

Milwaukee County v. R.T.H., 2019AP1763, 10/12/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This decision raises an important question of first impression: Are appeals from expired involuntary medication orders ever moot? The court of appeals holds that once the involuntary med order expires, it doesn’t have to address the merits of a claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the order. We think the court of appeals is wrong. Let’s hope that “Robert” files a petition for review.

Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2021AP581, 10/12/21, Distract 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Before a circuit court enters an order to recommit a person under Chapter 51, it is supposed to make specific factual findings with reference to the applicable standard of dangerousness in Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(a)2.  Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court violated this rule.

City of Port Washington v. Sandra J. Koziol, 2021AP449-450-FT, 10/6/21, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Each year, Wisconsin’s municipal courts resolve close to half of a million cases, including traffic offenses, OWIs, and other quasi-criminal matters. See data here. A party aggrieved by a municipal court judgment has a statutory right to appeal it. This unpublished opinion resolves an issue of first impression regarding the procedure for appealing municipal court judgments in a way that restricts that right and violates the statute.

La Crosse County DHS v. B.B. and E.B., 2020AP2030 & 2020AP2031, District 4, 9/30/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.B. and E.B. challenge the order terminating their parental rights, arguing that the guardian ad litem improperly invoked the children’s best interest standard during the grounds trial and that conducting the dispositional hearing via Zoom violated their due process rights. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.

State v. Edward R. Gasse, 2021AP484, 9/29/2021, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gasse arrived at the police station shortly after midnight; officers had observed him about 80 minutes prior at his residence and believed him to be drunk. He initially said he’d driven there but later changed his story; video surveillance revealed that he had, in fact, driven. After some limited field sobriety testing, the officer at the station arrested him and he refused to consent to chemical testing. He appeals the circuit court’s determination that there was probable cause for the arrest and thus that the refusal citation was lawful.