On Point

State v. Garland Dean Barnes, 2023 WI 45, 6/6/2023, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

Review was granted in on two issues: (1) whether a defendant can “open the door” to testimony that violates his right to confrontation and (2) whether a non-testifying officer’s statement that he saw the defendant commit the crime was admissible because it was not offered to prove that the defendant did in fact commit the crime. See here. However, a unanimous court affirms Barnes’ conviction on harmless error grounds and “assume[s] without deciding that Barnes’ confrontation right was violated.” (Opinion, ¶3).

Barron County DH & HS v. J.W., 2023AP60, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.W. (“Jill”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove continuing CHIPS grounds for terminating her parental rights and the circuit court’s exercise of discretion in terminating her rights at the disposition hearing. Neither challenge succeeds.

Barron County DH & HS v. Q.B., 2023AP37, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the trial to terminate the parental rights of Q.B. (“Quan”) on grounds of continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility, a substance abuse counselor referred to Quan having spent “quite a bit of time incarcerated over the years” before the entry of the CHIPS order. (¶¶8-9, 24). The circuit court then declined to give a cautionary instruction. Assuming the evidence was inadmissible and that a cautionary instruction was appropriate, the error was harmless.

Brown County DH & HS v. T.H., 2022AP2168, 2022AP2169, 2022AP2170, & 2022AP2171, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 2022AP2168, with links to other consolidated cases)

T.H. (“Terese”) argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating her rights to her four children based on continuing denial of physical placement or visitation grounds, § 48.415(4), because it failed to account sufficiently for, and give appropriate weight to, her positive change and the progress she made in meeting court-ordered conditions for reunification. The court of appeals disagrees, finding the circuit court analyzed all the dispositional factors for each child, employed a rational thought process, and weighed the important factors that were supported by the record.

State v. Conrad M. Mader, 2022AP382-CR, District 2, 6/7/23 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mader was convicted of repeated sexual assault of his stepdaughter. He argues his trial lawyer was ineffective in numerous ways. The court of appeals agrees trial counsel performed deficiently in three respects, but holds trial counsel’s mistakes weren’t prejudicial and therefore Mader isn’t entitled to a new trial.

Winnebago County v. T.G., 2022AP2078, District 2, 6/14/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the final hearing on a petition to commit T.G. (“Thomas”) under § 51.20, the County presented evidence he threw urine and feces at a guard on one occasion and later made a threat that he’d act in a way that would require staff to “suit up” and do a cell extraction and then “hurt” staff. (¶¶3-5). Considered together, this evidence satisfied the dangerousness standard under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.

Winnebago County DHS v. B.K.V., 2023AP310, District 2, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.K.V. filed a postdisposition motion for a new trial in her termination of parental rights proceeding. The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of her motion.

State v. Michael K. Fermanich, 2023 WI 48, 6/14/23, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The key takeaway here is that five justices reaffirm and apply State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, and hold that Fermanich is entitled to 433 days sentence credit for time he spent in custody in connection with Oneida County charges that were dismissed and read-in at his Langlade County sentencing. (Opinion, ¶2). A concurrence by Justice Dallet is worth reading as a preemptive response to the dissent’s answer to the question for which the court granted review: whether State v. Tuescher should be reexamined and limited to the unique circumstances present there. A dissent by Chief Justice Ziegler and R.G. Bradley would have overruled Floyd, denied Fermanich credit under Tuescher, and required him to return to custody for an additional 433 days. (See Op., ¶19, Dallet, concurring).

Kenosha County Division of Child and Family Services v. D.R.-R., 2022AP1812, 06/01/23, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In what should not be a shocking outcome, a mother’s failure to appear at a single pre-trial hearing is not “egregious” and does not support a default judgment on grounds.

State v. Wilson P. Anderson, 2023 WI 44, 6/2/23, summarily reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; 2020AP819; case activity (including briefs)

As we’ve noted previously, the court of appeals (in the person of a single judge in District 1) decided this case shortly after the same court (by a three-judge panel of District 4) decided State v. Green, 2021 WI App 18, 396 Wis. 2d 658, 957 N.W.2d 583. Green reversed an order that a criminal defendant be involuntarily medicated to competency, relying on and fleshing out the factors established by Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). In particular, Green required the state to file, for the court’s approval, an individualized treatment plan specifying medications and doses. (Green was then taken up by the supreme court, but its decision addressed other matters, leaving the court of appeals’ reading of Sell intact.) The D1 judge in Wilson’s case didn’t follow Green (or, as the state now concedes, Sell itself) and okayed a med order prepared by a psychologist with a generic recommendation that Wilson be medicated. The supreme court granted Wilson’s petition, and the state’s litigation position changed: it conceded in SCOW that it hadn’t met its burden under Sell. In briefing and argument, the only dispute between the parties was whether the testimony of a medical doctor is always necessary to satisfy Sell‘s requirements.