On Point: B. Continuance

State v. Matthew E. Sullivan, 2023AP2138, 10/19/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Prior to his refusal hearing, Sullivan requested a continuance so he could obtain counsel. The circuit court denied his request. Sullivan then represented himself and challenged the sought after revocation by relying on the affirmative defense that a “physical disability or diseased unreleated to the use of alcohol” caused him to refuse the test. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a)5.c. The circuit court rejected Sullivan’s affirmative defense and revoked his license. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. Ronnie Cecil Peebles, 2017AP2536-CR, District 4, 8/16/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court didn’t err in denying the adjournment request Peebles made on the morning of trial because he said he was feeling ill. 

State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.

Racine County HSD v. R.E., 2016AP2039, 3/15/2017, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The record supported the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment on grounds of abandonment because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether R.E. had failed to visit or communicate with her child, S.E., for a period of three or more months, § 48.415(1)(a)2.

State v. Michael Steel, Jr., 2016AP796-CR, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Steel’s requests for a new lawyer and an adjournment on the morning of trial.

State v. Malcolm A. Butler, 2014 WI App 4; case activity

The 120-day deadline for trying a case under the Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11(2), is explicitly “subject to” the speedy trial statute, § 971.10; thus, the Intrastate Detainer Act incorporates the provision of the speedy trial statute that allows for continuances for good cause, § 971.10(3)(a), and those continuances may go beyond the 120-day deadline.

State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11

For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court improperly refused to adjourn trial so that the defense could secure presence of a witness.

Holding: Because the absent witness’s proposed testimony was vague as to details in support of alibi, the trial court didn’t err in finding insufficient materiality to support adjournment.

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126

For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in denying a continuance based on assertions that lead counsel wanted to obtain assistance of another attorney in trying the case, and also was having difficulty locating certain witnesses.

Holding: Given that these witnesses ultimately testified, and that the desired attorney never made an appearance or filed a notice of retainer,