On Point blog, page 38 of 790
Officer did not seize citizen by parking nose-to-nose and shining a spotlight into parked car
State v. Justin J. Kahle, 2022AP1555-CR, District II, 1-judge decision, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a case heavily reliant on SCOW’s decision in County of Grant v. Vogt, the court of appeals easily concludes that law enforcement did not seize an intoxicated motorist by virtue of shining a spotlight into that motorist’s parked truck.
SCOW reverses COA and finds that circuit court exercised “sound discretion” when it granted a mistrial based on evidence later found to be admissible
State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2023 WI 57, 6/29/23, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In yet another reversal of a defense win, a divided Court upholds the circuit court’s exercise of discretion, despite serious criticisms of the circuit court’s reasoning made by the dissenters.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion when it entered an individualized order terminating parental rights of one parent
State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.
Circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying criminal defendant access to juvenile records
Manitowoc County H.S.D. v. T.H., 2022AP1631, District II, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Applying a deferential standard of review, the court of appeals rejects T.H.’s attempts to obtain CPS records he claims are essential to present a complete defense in a related criminal case.
Defense Win! COA holds that circuit court improperly required defendant to reimburse attorney fees related to dismissed case
State v. Aman Deep Singh, 2022AP1202-04, District I, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a somewhat messy pro se appeal, the court of appeals agrees that the circuit court improperly required Singh to reimburse attorney’s fees but rejects his remaining claims.
SCOW reverses court of appeals and holds parent is unable to withdraw their plea, fails to agree on much of anything else
State v. A.G., 2023 WI 61, 6/30/23, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)
In a closely-watched appeal involving tricky questions regarding plea withdrawal in TPR cases, a fractured court agrees that the court of appeals got it wrong but fails to otherwise develop the law.
Defense Win! EJW applies retroactively, reversal is the proper remedy for a legally defective extension hearing, and DJW survives yet another challenge.
Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2023 WI 59, 6/29/23, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)
In a case with potentially far-reaching implications for Chapter 51 appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issues a narrow holding that leaves a major D.J.W. issue for another day.
June 2023 publication list
On June 28, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of one criminal law related decision: State v. Tracy Laver Hailes, 2023 WI App 29 (circuit court can’t apply § 939.62(1) and § 961.48 penalty enhancers at the same time)
Defense Win! COA orders protective placement petition dismissed on remand
Department on Aging v. R.B.L., 2022AP1431, District I, 6/27/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In this protective placement appeal raising two interesting issues related to the circuit court’s competency, the court of appeals reverses with instructions to dismiss the underlying petition.
COA denies relief in messy non-Strickland ineffectiveness case
State v. Cedric Tung, 2021AP1705-CR, 6/20/23, recommended for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a factually complicated ineffectiveness case that does not involve the usual Strickland analysis, the court of appeals affirms based primarily on a messy factual record.