On Point blog, page 31 of 53
TPR dismissed because final placement order lacked notice of conditions for return and grounds for termination
St. Croix County DHHS v. Michael D. & Juanita A., 2014AP2431, District 3, 1/16/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 4/16/15, reversed, 2016 WI 35; case activity
The court of appeals holds that the notice requirements of §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) were not satisfied because the last order concerning out-of-home placement of Juanita’s child did not include the written notice of the applicable grounds for termination or the conditions for Matthew’s return. The County therefore failed to meet its burden of proof on the continuing CHIPS ground under § 48.415(2)(a)1. and the termination order is vacated and the TPR petition dismissed.
Court of appeals reverses order for restitution of property that was unrelated to either a conviction or a read-in charge
State v. Lance F., 2014AP1881-FT, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court lacks authority to order a juvenile (who had been found delinquent for battery, disorderly conduct and physical abuse of a child) to make restitution of the victim’s missing property, where he was never charged with theft of the property, he never admitted to stealing the property, and the state did not read in charges relating to theft of the property. The court explained:
Court of appeals reverses “unfitness” finding in TPR case
Winnebago County DHS v. Ashley A.O., 2014AP2404, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court may not enter a summary judgment finding a parent unfit during the grounds phases of a TPR proceeding when that finding is based on an order denying the parent physical placement due to his (or her) incarceration.
Warrantless entry to home wasn’t justified under community caretaker rule
State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2014AP108-CR, District 2/4, 12/23/14 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/17/15; case activity
The warrantless search of Matalonis’s home, which led to the discovery of marijuana, was not justified under the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement because there was no reasonable basis to believe there was an injured person in the home.
Police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop car for leaving scene of a reportable accident
State v. Cody J. Nolan, 2014AP1359-CR, District 3/4, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the red car Nolan was driving had been involved in a reportable accident and was leaving the scene or was assisting others in leaving the scene of a reportable accident in violation of § 346.70(1) or (1m)(b), as there was no evidence supporting a reasonable belief the alleged accident involved sufficient property damage to make it reportable under the statute.
Judge—not clerk—makes sentence credit determination
State v. Tahj E. Kitt, 2015 WI App 9; case activity
“When a convicted offender has put sentence credit at issue, the court—not the clerk—must make and explain the decision on how much sentence credit is to be awarded.” (¶2).
SCOW: Defendant’s plea was invalid because he was mistakenly informed he faced life sentence if he went to trial
State v. Myron C. Dillard, 2014 WI 123, 11/26/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2013 WI App 108; majority opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity
Dillard accepted a plea bargain under which the state dropped a persistent repeater allegation, which carried a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release. But Dillard was never really subject to the persistent repeater law. When he discovered this fact after he was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea on the ground his decision to accept the plea bargain was based on his mistaken belief—one shared by the prosecutor, his lawyer, and the court—that he was facing a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted after a trial. The supreme court holds he is entitled to plea withdrawal because his plea was not knowing and voluntary and because his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to discover the persistent repeater law never applied to Dillard.
Odor of raw marijuana didn’t justify search of driver’s wallet
State v. Ashley L. Eirich, 2014AP1901-CR, District 2, 11/26/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Saying that “[t]raining and experience do not turn police officers into drug-detection canines,” the court of appeals holds that probable cause to search a vehicle based on the odor of raw marijuana did not extend to a search of the bill compartment of the driver’s wallet.
Court of appeals orders new trial due to impact of evidence relating to charges dismissed during trial
State v. Michael C. Hess, 2014AP268-CR, District 3, 11/11/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
While the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Hess possessed methamphetamine, Hess is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because the verdict may have been influenced by evidence offered to proved drugged-driving charges that were dismissed during trial.
Defendant made sufficient showing for in camera review of complainant’s mental health records under Shiffra/Green
State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2015 WI App 2, petition for review granted 3/16/15, affirmed by a divided court, 2016 WI 66; case activity
Lynch was entitled to an in camera review of the complainant’s treatment records because there is a reasonable likelihood the records will reveal the complainant exhibits ongoing symptoms associated with PTSD that affect her ability to recall and describe pertinent events, and that she failed to report Lynch’s alleged sexual abuse of her to treatment providers, at least as a child.