On Point blog, page 15 of 790

COA: Evidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances sufficient due to reasonable inference

State v. Joseph B. Venable, 2023AP1367, 8/15/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court judgment convicting Venable of first offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), due to his use of prescription medications.

COA: Reports of domestic incident justified stopping vehicle as community caretaking function; extending stop to perform field sobriety tests permitted based on reasonable suspicion of OWI.

State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence.  She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle.  The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.

1984 prior conviction admissible in first-degree sexual assault of a child trial under the prior conviction statute, § 904.04(2)(b)2.

State v. Kenneth W. Hill, 2022AP1718-CR, 8/6/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

The state appealed after the circuit court denied its motion seeking to admit Hill’s 1984 conviction from Minnesota for “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(b)2. at his trials for two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reverses and remands with directions, outlining the relevant analysis, holding that the admissible evidence includes only the fact of the conviction, not the underlying details of the prior case, and concluding that the Sullivan analysis does not apply. (¶2).

In published decision, COA holds that CR-215 procedure triggers attachment of right to counsel but denies relief given that law was “unsettled”

State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, 8/6/24, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

In a published decision that criminal practitioners have been waiting on for years, COA holds that a CR-215 probable cause procedure used to satisfy the requirements of Riverside triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

COA affirms discretionary termination order under deferential standard of review

State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.

Publication Orders of COA

In May, June and July COA released a number of published decisions:

COA affirms waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction

State v. J.C., 2024AP17, 7/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jacob” appealed from an order granting the state’s waiver petition on charges of first-degree reckless injury, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and possession of a dangerous weapon. The COA affirms.

COA rejects attack on discretionary termination order under well-settled precedent

Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.

COA affirms ch. 51 commitment under third standard

Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard.

Two interesting links for appellate practitioners

In the Wisconsin Lawyer, Retired Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Christopher R. Foley has an insightful piece titled “Left in the Dark: State v. A.G. & Burden of Proof in Involuntary TPR Dispositional Hearings.” The article contains an interesting analysis of the current state of the law, along with some arguments Judge Foley believes have […]