On Point

State v. War Nakula-Reginald Marion, 2019AP2206-CR & 2019AP2207-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Marion was given maximum consecutive sentences on multiple misdemeanor convictions, all consecutive to the reconfinement ordered after his ES in a prior case was revoked due to the new convictions. Appointed postconviction counsel filed a no-merit appeal under § 809.32 and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions.

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, 5/12/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted, 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 40; case activity

For more than a year now, Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, has required circuit courts imposing ch. 51 commitments to identify which statutory form of dangerousness has been proved. A little over a month ago, the court of appeals decided Rock Co. DHS v. J.E.B., holding the circuit court failed to satisfy this requirement. But the appellate court didn’t undo the commitment: it just remanded for the circuit court to decide whether the facts satisfied any of the five standards. It did this even as it declined to address J.E.B.’s other challenge: that there was insufficient evidence of any form of dangerousness. This latter claim would have required dismissal of the petition. Is the court of appeals free to refuse to consider a litigant’s claim–a claim that would that would dispose of the entire case–for no other reason than that it is granting some lesser relief?

Last fall, SCOW granted review on the question of whether a doctor’s failure to file an examiner’s report 48 hours before a commitment hearing deprived the circuit court of competence to adjudicate the case. See our post on Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., Appeal No. 2019AP2073. This is a recurring problem, so Chapter 51 lawyers eagerly awaited the answer. Unfortunately, after briefing and oral argument, SCOW has dismissed yet another Chapter 51 case without a decision.

Rock County v. J.J.K., 2020AP1085, 4/29/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

This is an appeal from the initial commitment and involuntary medication order entered against J.J.K. The court of appeals affirmed both contrary to published precedent on the rule against hearsay, the plain error doctrine, and procedural and substantive due process.

Rock County v. J.J.K., 2020AP2105, District IV, 5/6/21 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is the sequel to the Rock County v. J.J.K.. 2020AP1085 above. The decision is alarming because the circuit court found J.J.K. dangerous enough for a recommitment based on the 5th standard, but the court of appeals affirmed based on the 4th standard. The opinion also further highlights the need for SCOW to elaborate its decision in Winnebago County v. C.S., 2020 WI 33, 391 Wis. 2d 35, 940 N.W.2d 875. Specifically, can a court order involuntary medication for a person undergoing recommitment without evidence that he is dangerous as defined by §51.61(1)(g)3?

State v. Mitchell L. Christen, 2019AP1767-CR,  affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; 5/4/21, case activity (including briefs)

Christen was armed while drunk in his apartment when he threatened to shoot his roommates.  A jury found that he violated §941.20(1)(b), which makes it a crime to operate or go armed with a firearm while intoxicated. Christen challenged the constitutionality of §941.20(1)(b) as applied to him because it burdened his 2nd Amendment right to armed self-defense under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In a 5-1-1 opinion, SCOW rejects this challenge. Hagedorn concurs. R.G. Bradley dissents arguing in part that the prevalence of guns and copious alcohol consumption in the colonies show that the Framers guaranteed Americans the right to be armed while drunk.

State v. Scott William Forrett, 2021 WI App 31, petition for review granted, 9/14/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 37; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin permits a driver’s prior refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test as a criminal penalty enhancer for a subsequent OWI. In an open and shut opinion that is recommended for publication, the court of appeals just declared that statutory scheme unconstitutional based on Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), and State v. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 383 Wis. 2d 147, 914 N.W.2d 120.

State v. Teresa L. Clark, 2020AP1058-CR, bypass granted 4/27/21; case activity

Issue: (adapted from State’s COA brief):

When the State uses a prior OWI conviction to enhance the charge and sentence for a subsequent OWI offense, a defendant may collaterally attack the prior conviction. If the defendant proves that her right to counsel was violated in the prior case, the conviction may not be used to enhance the charge and sentence in the new case. Does the burden shift to the State when there is no transcript available to show that the circuit court violated the defendant’s right to counsel?

On April 28, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Patrick A. Keller, 2021 WI App 22 (Confrontation Clause doesn’t apply to statements of mandatory child abuse reporter)

State v. Markell Hogan, 2021 WI App 24 (cop can testify as human trafficking expert)

State v. Blong Simba Vang, 2021 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)

The search of Vang’s car, which was parked on school property, was reasonable under  the less stringent standard for searches of students established in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 324 (1985), even though Vang wasn’t a student at the school.