On Point blog, page 61 of 790
Police had probable cause to arrest for OWI
State v. Andrew Austin Keenan-Becht, 2022AP73-CR, District 2, 8/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the long-standing test for probable cause, Keenan-Becht’s arrest was lawful.
Defendant’s rights to discovery, confrontation not violated
State v. Kevin Lee Wilke, 2020AP1068-CR, District 3, 8/2/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Wilke’s arguments for a new trial and his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
July 2022 publication list
On July 27, 2022, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
Reversal rates for court of appeals judges
SCOWstats just reviewed 70 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions over the past 2 years to determine which court of appeals judge was reversed most often and least often. And the winners are . . . SCOW reversed Judges Dugan, Donald and Kessler (and District 1 in general) most often. It reversed Judge Davis least often.
COA affirms recommitment, finds sufficient evidence and compliance with D.J.W.
Manitowoc County v. J.M.K., 2022AP122, 7/27/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.M.K. is currently diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. He has been committed several times since 2015. Right now he is doing well. He lives in a supervised apartment but holds a job, participates in community activities, and works out at the YMCA. The county monitors his medication compliance because in the past when he has stopped taking them he deteriorated rapidly.
Defense win! TPR reversed due to insufficient notice of grounds for termination
Brown County v. J.V., 2022AP532, 7/28/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a modified CHIPS dispositional order, the circuit court stated that it was suspending Jennifer’s visitation rights to her son, subject to her completing certain conditions. The court did not orally warn her that her parental rights could be terminated if her visitation rights weren’t reinstated within 1 year. Nor did the written order indicate that her rights could be terminated based on continuing denial of visitation under §§ 48.415(4) and 48.356(2).
SCOW: trial judge’s in-chambers conversation with ailing juror wasn’t a critical stage of proceedings requiring the presence of defense counsel
State v. Robert Daris Spencer, 2022 WI 56, July 6, 2022, affirming in part and reversing in part an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
A majority of the supreme court holds that Spencer had no right to be personally present or even to have counsel present when the trial judge decided to dismiss a juror for cause just before deliberations began because the judge’s interaction with the juror wasn’t a critical stage of the proceedings.
Counsel performed deficiently, failed to object to GAL’s closing argument at TPR trial
Chippewa County Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. J.W.., 2021AP1986, 7/19/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Janine” raised an insufficient evidence claim and several ineffective assistance of counsel claims in her appeal from an order terminating her parental right to her son. This post focuses on two of the IAC claims. Counsel failed to object to (1) portions of the county social worker’s testimony, and (2) new information that the GAL introduced during closing statements.
Circuit court applied all “best interests” factors, TPR affirmed
State v. S.G., 2022AP585-587, 7/19/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
S.G. argued that the circuit court failed to address 2 of the 6 “best interest” factors in §48.426(3) when it terminated her parental rights to her 3 sons. According to the court of appeals, the record proves otherwise.
SCOW reverses discretionary juvenile non-waiver in law-free decision
State v. X.S., 2022 WI 49, 6/29/22, modifying and affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2021AP419, case activity (including, for some reason, one brief)
Our supreme court is fond of extolling its role as a “law-developing court.” You’ll search in vain for any law development in this case. Rather than developing the law, the high court exercises its discretion to waive a juvenile into the adult system.