On Point

Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms.

Sawyer County v. P.D.F., 2022AP2007, 11/7/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although P.D.F. successfully persuades COA that the circuit court erroneously concluded  he did not understand the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to medication, the record nonetheless shows that he was incapable of applying an understanding.

Walworth County v. E.W., 2023AP289, 11/1/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Defying the recent trend of hearsay victories in Chapter 51 appeals, COA rejects E.W.’s attempt to argue that the admission of hearsay evidence at his final hearing constituted “plain error.”

State v. Michael Pruett Rudolf, 2022AP157, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Rudolf swerve over the fog line and nearly strike the curb several times. Rudolf then drove lawfully for 3/4 of a mile before pulling into the parking lot of a closed auto dealership at 10:40 p.m. The officer detained Rudolf.  Lawful stop?

Jefferson County DHS v. C.T.S., 2023AP1404, 11/2/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.T.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his son, K.S. The court of appeals affirms, holding the county adduced sufficient evidence of the continuing CHIPS ground and acted within its discretion in weighing the dispositional factors.

J.S. v. J.T., 2023AP38-39, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jack” filed for termination of “Jasmine’s” parental rights to their two children. At trial, Jasmine’s counsel didn’t object when Jack’s lawyer elicited testimony from a social worker that the children “seemed to love it” at the house Jack shared with his wife, that the couple were transparent, and that they had a “great support person.” The court of appeals doesn’t decide whether this was deficient performance, instead concluding that Jasmine didn’t show she was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony against her.

D.T.S. v. B.E.C., 2023AP1081, 10/5/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.E.C. is A.R.G.’s birth mother. D.T.S. is A.R.G.’s father. D.T.S. had sole physical custody after her mother left A.R.G. in his care when A.R.G. was two. Later, D.T.S. remarried and moved for termination of B.E.C.’s rights to A.R.G., alleging, as relevant here, abandonment. His new wife also petitioned to adopt the girl. The jury found B.E.C. unfit and the circuit court terminated her rights.

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. Jason William Castillo, 2023AP398, 10/26/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Castillo refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and subsequently challenged the revocation of his driver’s license. In doing so, however, Castillo claims only that he was unlawfully seized prior to his refusal and that the unlawful seizure should result in the suppression of the evidence. The court of appeals and the state agree that Castillo was unlawfully seized, but Castillo’s suppression claim fails because “there was no form of misconduct by the deputy and exclusion would not “appreciably deter” any form of police misconduct.” (Op., ¶3).

On October 25, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of two criminal law related decisions: State v. Troy Allen Lanning, 2023 WI App 52 (holding that a pending criminal prosecution means civil forfeiture proceeding need not be held within 60 days) State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2023 WI App 53 (rejecting state’s expansive bail […]