On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Shawn A. Hodgkins, 2017AP1799-CR, District 2, 12/12/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

Hodgkins objected to DOC collecting costs from him while he was in prison because the circuit court ordered the costs to be collected while he was on a term of consecutive probation. He also sought a “new factor” sentence modification. Alas, it was all in vain.

Winnebago County v. A.A., 2018AP1505-FT, 12/12/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.A.’s commitment was set to expire on March 28th. Two days before his March 22 recommitment hearing he demanded a jury trial. The court gave him one on  April 12th. A.A. argued that the trial court lost competency to act when it failed to hold the recommitment trial before the original commitment expired.

State v. William J. Smith, 2018AP320-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The encounter between police and Smith wasn’t a seizure, so the search of Smith wasn’t the fruit of an illegal seizure.

State v. Howard D. Davis, 2017AP942-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Davis claimed trial counsel was ineffective in various ways, and that a juror may have introduced extraneous information into deliberations. The trial court denied his claims without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. Stuart W. Topping, 2018AP318, 2/6/18, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including brief)

You don’t see this very often. Topping, represented by counsel, filed an initial brief. The State never responded. That might have been cause for summary reversal. But here Topping’s challenge to the circuit court’s finding that he refused to submit to a breath test after his arrest for OWI failed even though it was unopposed

Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity 

A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.

Milwaukee County v. T.L.R., 2018AP1131, 12/4/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

Here’s an issue of first impression for SCOW. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D. Wis. 1972) established procedural and substantive due process rights for persons undergoing mental commitments. One of those rights is the right to particularized notice of the basis for detention, including, the legal standard upon which the person is detained. Id. at 1092. T.L.R didn’t receive that notice.

Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity

W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate.

State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.

State v. Steven L. Buckingham, 2017AP1852-CR, 12/4/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs).

When the court of appeals’ dismisses an appellant’s arguments on the grounds that they are “conclusory,” it’s always wise to check the briefs. In this case,  Buckingham filed a fully-developed, well-organized 42-page brief in chief presenting 5 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim for post-conviction discovery.