On Point blog, page 1 of 3
COA: Mother forfeited personal jurisdiction and improper substitution claims
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.
Parent forfeited challenges to competency and jurisdiction in TPR appeal by not objecting to defective service
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.
COA considers and rejects pro se defendant’s various jurisdictional and legal process claims
State v. Kit R. Stilwell, 2022AP1734-CR, District 2, 4/05/23 (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After summarizing an “inordinate[ly]” complicated set of facts in an otherwise simple bail jumping case, the court of appeals notes that because he failed to file a reply brief, the state’s arguments were conceded by Stilwell. Recognizing that Stilwell was unrepresented and the “obligation on the part of a court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants,” however, the court briefly addresses Stilwell’s arguments. (Opinion, ¶7).
Circuit court didn’t lose jurisdiction by dismissing charges and then quickly reinstating them
State v. Rasheem D. Davis, 2023 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing an issue of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s order dismissing charges against Davis that was rescinded minutes later didn’t deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Father’s attempt to voluntarily terminate parental rights dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
R.G. v. S.P., 2022AP1876, District 4, 02/16/2023 (one judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.G. filed a petition to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to a non-marital child that he had not seen in over seven years. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G. pursued an appeal pro se, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 48.185 supported his petition in Dane County.
Failure to raise defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in TPR case waived the issue
Portage County DHHS v. A.K., 2022AP30, District 4, 8/11/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A parent’s failure to raise the issue of the circuit court’s personal jurisdiction as a defense during the TPR proceeding means the issue was waived.
SCOW expands municipal court jurisdiction, curbs collateral attacks on OWIs
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11, 2/11/19 (on bypass of the court of appeals); case activity (including briefs)
Municipal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over ordinance violations (e.g. an OWI 1st), and circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over misdemeanors and felonies (e.g. an OWI 2nd or subsequent). In this 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that a municipal court had subject matter jurisdiction over an OWI 2nd that was mischarged as an OWI 1st.
COA: no subject-matter jurisdiction to address 20-years-past probation extension
State v. James Edward Olson, 2018AP1987, 9/17/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olson says that the DOC extended his probation by six months without notice to him, and he shouldn’t have to pay the fees associated with those six months. The court of appeals has two problems with this claim: the record contains an order for the extension, apparently signed by him, and his probation ended in 1997.
SCOW to address municipal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over criminal OWI
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2018AP1129, petition for bypass granted 2/12/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from petition for bypass):
City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 2016 WI 65, ¶1, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738 held that when a circuit court handles a 1st offense OWI that is mischarged due to an unknown prior offense, it is a defect in the circuit court’s competency but not the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, a defendant must timely object to the circuit court’s lack of competency or the objection is forfeited. Is the same true when the mischarged OWI is in municipal court?
Defendant forfeited competency objection; had no right to counsel on OWI 2nd mischarged as OWI 1st
St. Croix County v. Kimberly L. Severson, 2017AP1111, 11/13/18, District 3, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a City of Eau Claire v. Booth redux. In 2001 Severson was charged with OWI 1st in Eau Claire County and convicted of a separate OWI 1st in St. Croix County. Had St. Croix conviction been properly charged as an OWI 2nd, Severson would have had a constitutional right to counsel. But te court of appeals, applying Booth, held that Severson’s failure to object to the St. Croix County circuit court’s lack of competency to proceed to judgment forfeited that issue for appeal.