On Point

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.

State v. M.C., 2021AP301, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decsion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding to waive M.C. into adult court on a sexual assault charge, so the waiver is reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion properly.

State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial.

Our, shall we say, “mature” readers will no doubt recollect this case from benighted 1970s, while our younger readers may be hearing about it for the first time. It’s the infamous Bronfman kidnapping saga, with a new twist provided by the self-published memoir of the recently-deceased lawyer for Byrne, one of the two co-defendants. It’s described in this long-form article in the New York Times.

For more on the suppression of Byrne’s statement to the FBI,

St. Croix County v. Kelly M. Lagerstrom, 2019AP928, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

As in State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687, retrograde extrapolation testimony from a toxicologist was admissible as evidence of Lagerstrom’s possible blood alcohol content around the time the state alleged he drove his car into a ditch.

Douglas County DHHS v. D.B., 2020AP982, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. claims trial counsel at his TPR trial was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the application to his case of the amended version of the statute governing continuing CHIPS grounds; (2) failing to introduce evidence about additional visits between D.B. and his son; and (3) failing to object to testimony about his son’s negative reactions to him during certain visits. The court of appeals rejects the claims.

Jackson County v. T.A.L., 2021AP499, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.A.L.’s transfer from outpatient status to a locked inpatient unit based on his medical needs didn’t violate the requirements of § 51.35.

Portage County v. Sean Michael Dugan, 2021AP454 & 2021AP455, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Dugan was stopped in a snowstorm. The officer had him do field sobriety tests at the scene of the stop, in a rut in the snow crated by the squad’s tires. (¶¶3-4). Having Dugan do the FSTs in the snow didn’t make his detention unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Winnebago County v. J.C.S., 2021AP354, District 2, 8/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at J.C.S.’s final commitment hearing was “just enough” to prove J.C.S. was a proper subject of treatment, one of the elements necessary to justify a ch. 51 commitment order, § 51.20(1)(a)1.

State v. Christopher W. LeBlanc, 2020AP62-CR, District 2, 7/30/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

If a sentencing court imposes an excessive term of initial confinement (IC) or extended supervision (ES) when sentencing a defendant under Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS), the defendant “is entitled to a new sentencing hearing as a matter of law unless the nonexcessive term of IC or ES is at the maximum, in which case the court has the discretion to commute the excessive component to the maximum term pursuant to Wis. Stat. §973.13 (2019-20) without holding a new sentencing hearing.” (¶1).