On Point: Uncategorized

March was another slow month, but brought a couple of cases potentially relevant to our practice with respect to a delayed search of a cell phone, the use of suggestive lineups, the constitutionality of laws governing short-barreled rifles, and an argument that the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal restitution orders:

There has been a real paucity of relevant cases from the Seventh. We keep saving this article and hoping more could be added, but until things heat up again, we thought we’d share these cases from the last few months that might be relevant to our readers.

Burnett County v. B.S., 2023AP1811-FT, 2/28/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Due in part to last-minute witness unavailability, the County’s attempt to rely solely on generic and conclusory testimony from an examining psychiatrist fails in yet another helpful, and citable, 51 win.

State v. Jeffrey D. Kosmosky, 2022AP1754-CR, District 2, 3/29/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The officer who stopped the car Kosmosky was driving for speeding had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop by having Kosmosky get out of the car and do FSTs.

State v. Michael Justin Schwersinske, Jr., 2022AP162-CR, District 2, 8/10/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schwersinske concedes the lawfulness of the initial stop of the car he was driving for crossing the centerline of Highway 151. But he argues, unsuccessfully, that the officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to have Schwersinske do field sobriety tests.

State v. L.T.H., 2022AP56 & 2022AP57, District 1, 7/19/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.T.H. challenges the circuit court’s refusal to terminate her grounds trial from that of the father of one of her children, its decision to allow evidence of her own experience with the child welfare system when she was a child, its refusal to allow her to testify at the dispositional hearing, and its decision to terminate her parental rights. The court of appeals rejects all her challenges.

Sheboygan County DHHS v. A.L.A., Sr., 2022AP267, District 2, 5/18/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court didn’t err in granting the County’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds alleged in the TPR petition because A.L.A. raised no genuine issues of material fact in response to the motion.

State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 2021 WI 81, 11/18/21, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Section 973.15(5) provides that if an offender convicted in Wisconsin is “made available” to another jurisdiction, he or she gets credit toward his or her Wisconsin sentence “under the terms of § 973.155” for the duration of his or her custody in the other jurisdiction. The supreme court holds this language unambiguously requires that to get credit, the offender’s custody in the other jurisdiction must meet § 973.155’s requirement that the custody be “in connection with” the conduct for which the Wisconsin sentence was imposed.

Juneau County DHS v. B.J., 2021AP1359, 2021AP1360, 2021AP1361, District 4, 11/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly granted summary judgment on the TPR petitions against B.J., based on: B.J.’s was conviction for sexually assaulting one of the children, among other crimes, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of confinement; evidence B.J. engaged or had others engage is sexually improper behavior with the children;

State v. T.T., 2021AP739, 2021AP740, 2021AP741 & 2021AP742, District 1, 7/23/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.T. unsuccessfully challenges the findings at the grounds phase and the dispositional order terminating his parental rights to his four children.