On Point: 11. Defense Wins

K.W. & D.W. v. S.L., 2023AP1582, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The summary judgment issue here turned on one simple question: did a genuine issue of fact exist as to whether S.L. (“Susan”) knew or could have reasonably discovered the whereabouts of her son (Alex) during the relevant period of alleged abandonment? Upon consideration of Susan’s multiple affidavits and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Susan, as the non-moving party, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment on grounds.

State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2023AP460, 9/20/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a nice case to know, both for its careful, thorough analysis of a common ch. 51 problem–commitments based entirely or extensively on hearsay–and its collection of other cases analyzing the same issue. The sole witness at D.E.S. (“Dennis”)’s extension hearing was a Dr. Anderson, who had witnessed none of the behaviors she relied on to conclude that Dennis was dangerous, instead reading them from his institutional records. Over objection, the trial court relied on them anyway. The court of appeals now reverses the commitment because absent the hearsay, there was no evidence tending to show that Dennis would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

State v. Nicholas Anthony Stilwell, 2022AP1839, 7/20/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case has facts remarkably like those of State v. Cundy, a recommended-for-publication case the court of appeals decided the week before. Police received a report of a hit-and-run of a parked vehicle, and learned the truck that did the hitting and running was registered to Stilwell. They went to Stilwell’s apartment and found the truck parked nearby. They buzzed Stilwell and he answered the door. They eventually entered the apartment and determined, including by the use of a PBT, that Stilwell was intoxicated, though he denied having driven his truck. They cuffed him, told him he was being “detained,” and took him to the crash scene, where after about 30 minutes they secured other evidence that Stilwell had driven his truck; they thus arrested him.

State v. Gregory L. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

A person called police and said they’d seen a particular vehicle back into a parked car at idle speed and then drive off. About 40 minutes later, an officer arrived at Cundy’s house, knowing that the suspect vehicle was registered to Cundy and finding it in the driveway. The officer knocked on the front door and eventually spoke with Cundy, who remained inside the threshold. At some point the officer declined to let Cundy end the conversation, and a bit later he ordered Cundy out, drove him in his squad to the accident scene, and had the witness identify him. The officer then returned Cundy to his home, where after some further discussion, he was arrested.

Kenosha County Division of Child and Family Services v. D.R.-R., 2022AP1812, 06/01/23, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In what should not be a shocking outcome, a mother’s failure to appear at a single pre-trial hearing is not “egregious” and does not support a default judgment on grounds.

Nelson Garcia, Jr., v. Randall Hepp, No. 21-3268, 4/25/23, affirming Nelson Garcia, Jr. v. Brian Foster

A long line of Supreme Court cases holds that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel attaches when he or she becomes a criminal defendant: when he or she is formally accused of a crime. Most recently, in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), the Court applied this rule to conclude that the defendant had the right to counsel when a police officer brought him before a judge and the judge found probable cause, committed him to jail, and set bail. In Milwaukee County, though, when a person is arrested without a warrant, judges routinely find probable cause, order detention, and set bail without seeing the person. As happened in Garcia’s case, an officer presents a judge a form–the CR-215–detailing the basis for suspecting the person; the judge can then check a box indicating that probable cause exists and can also set bond. The form is then distributed to, among others, the person being held.

State v. Y.P.V., 2022AP1935-36, 3/21/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals reversed and remanded this TPR for two reasons. First, the mom made a prima facie case that her “no contest” plea to grounds was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, during the plea colloquy, the circuit court misstated the law that would apply during the disposition. Then, at the disposition phase, the circuit court failed to apply the proper standard of law and misstated an important fact.

State v. Brooke K. Eder, 2021AP485, 2/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officers got a warrant to arrest one Estes. The warrant permitted them to search Eder’s apartment for Estes; the affidavit gave various reasons to believe that Estes would be there. Estes was there, and they arrested him. After they arrested him, though, they searched the basement of the three-unit building. You can’t do that! “A search may not be continued after the objects identified in the search warrant have been located and seized.” State v. Starke, 81 Wis. 2d 399, 414, 260 N.W.2d 739 (1978). This unlawful search turned up contraband that led police to get a new warrant to search Eder’s apartment; Eder seeks to suppress the evidence found in this second search on the ground that it was the fruit of the basement search.

State v. Debra L. Rippentrop & Steven E. Rippentrop, 2023 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs) 2022AP92-CR and 2022AP93-CR

The nonprosecution agreement the Rippentrops made with the state doesn’t violate public policy and is therefore enforceable, and that requires the criminal charges filed against them to be dismissed with prejudice.