On Point: 23. Judge

State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.

State v. Maria A. Larson, 2023AP1534-CRAC, 4/24/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Larson’s frustrated attempts to request judicial substitution are finally vindicated in this published decision emphasizing a plain text reading of the statute’s straightforward legal requirements.

State v. J.S.,, 2024AP180 & 2024AP181, 4/16/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from TPR orders related to her two children, J.S. (“Julia”) raised two issues: whether the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over her and whether the circuit court erred by granting the GAL’s substitution request. The court of appeals makes short work of each argument because Julia forfeited the claims by not first raising either issue in the circuit court.

State v. Matthew Curtis Stills, 2022AP1390-CR, 2/13/24, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This 2016 case out of Milwaukee County has a bit of a backstory and an unfortunate ending for Sills. In 2020, the court of appeals reversed Sills’ conviction based on a Bangert violation related to the circuit court’s failure to advise Sills of the maximum fine. Thereafter, Sills went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, compared to the 15 years he received after his original plea. This time around, Sills raises two issues on appeal: (1) that trial court’s objective bias violated his right to a fair trial and (2) that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Unlike his first appeal, the court affirms rejects his claims and affirms his new conviction.

Waukesha County v. C.M.M., 2022AP2081, District 2, 7/19/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.M.M. (“Charles”) challenges a revised CHIPS dispositional order that eliminated visits between Charles and his son, A.M.M. Charles’ claim on appeal is that the circuit court erred by (1) substituting a “Criminal Division Judge” instead of a “Juvenile Division Judge” and (2) doing so without following the proper procedure. The court of appeals sees no errors and affirms.

Columbia County DHS v. K.D.K., 2022AP1835, 5/25/23, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.D.K. challenged an order terminating his parental rights to C.A.K. on 3 grounds: (1) the judge was not properly assigned to preside over his case; (2) the circuit court refused to give a special verdict question asking whether it had been impossible for K.D.K. to meet the conditions for return set forth in the CHIPS dispositional; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The court of appeals rejected all claims.

State v. Graham L. Stowe, 2021AP431-CR, District 3, 02/17/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Graham Stowe was found NGI in 2005 and committed to the Department of Health and Family Services for 39 years and 6 months. Between 2007 and 2019, Stowe filed 10 petitions for conditional release. The same circuit court judge who committed Stowe in 2005 has presided over every subsequent proceeding. After five prior appeals, the court of appeals now agrees with Stowe that the circuit court was objectively biased at his 2019 conditional release hearing based on a totality of comments that demonstrate a “serious risk of actual bias.” As a result, the court reverses the circuit court and remands the case for a new conditional release hearing before a different judge. (Opinion, ¶2).

State v. B.S.S., 2021AP2174, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.S.S. was adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault. She anticipated filing a motion to stay the sex offender registration requirement, see § 938.34(15m)(c) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, so she asked the court to provide funding for a defense expert to do a psychosexual evaluation to support the motion and to adjourn the dispositional hearing to get the evaluation done. In the course of denying her motions, the court made comments about the relevant legal standard for staying the requirement. (¶¶3-10). B.S.S. argues the court’s statements  show the court had prejudged, and thus was biased against, her request for a stay. The court of appeals rejects her claim.

State v. Justin M. Church, 2021AP751-CR, District 3, 6/1/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At a pretrial hearing the circuit court made what the court of appeals characterized as an “ill-advised and troubling” attempt at humor (¶26), but it didn’t demonstrate that the circuit court prejudged the sentence it was going to impose or otherwise demonstrate a serious risk of actual bias.

Portage County v. D.A., 2021AP1683, 2021AP1685, 2021AP1686, District 4, 3/24/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 21AP1683)

D.A. (“David”) raises various challenges to the finding his three children are in need of protection or services and to the dispositional orders. The court of appeals rejects his claims.