On Point: H. Presence of litigant

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.

State v. Jon Anthony Soto, 2012 WI 93, on certification; case activity

A guilty plea defendant has a statutory right under § 971.04(1)(g) to be present in court when the plea is accepted and judgment pronounced, but the right may be waived (as distinguished from forfeited), as it was here.

¶2   We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 971.04(1)(g) provides a criminal defendant the statutory right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge when a plea hearing is held,

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Alexander: Hans P. Koesser; case activity

Juror Selection / Dismissal – Right to Personal Presence 

A defendant has a non-waivable right to personal presence at voir dire, ¶6 (citing, § 971.04(1)(c); and, State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct.

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, ¶10, 307 Wis. 2d 372,

on certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether a defendant has a non-waivable right to be physically present at a §§ 971.04(1)(g) and 885.60.

If the right to physical presence at the plea proceeding can be waived or forfeited, whether a formal colloquy is nonetheless required before the defendant enters a plea via video conferencing.

certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity, circuit court affirmed 2012 WI 93

Plea Procedure – Personal Presence

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether Jon Soto’s statutory right to be physically present during a plea hearing was violated when the judge conducted the hearing through video teleconferencing and whether this issue was properly preserved.

State v. Calvin Jerome Pirtle, 2011 WI App 89(recommended for publication); for Pirtle: Christopher J. Cherella; case activity

Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph

Pirtle’s failure to object to the police presence allowed them to act on the co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006):

¶15      In Randolph,

Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed.

¶5        A determination that a person “is incompetent … is as difficult a judgment as a judge is called upon to make,” and thus the legislature has adopted procedural requirements “to mitigate the chances of error.”  Byrn v.

 State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel

Issue/Holding:

¶36      The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present.  We agree with the parties.…

¶63      (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court’s response to a jury request to see a written report and a transcript of a witness’s testimony — that these items were “not available” — without first seeking defense input was error.

Holding: The defendant’s presence is required at any critical stage,