On Point

Many misdemeanor defendants don’t have lawyers. So when prosecutors are negotiating a plea deals with them do they have to ensure that the defendants have an opportunity to obtain counsel or reveal collateral consequences–like deportation or the loss of public services? There’s a new ABA ethics opinion on this topic. Read about it here.

Take that prosecutor! Click here for the story.

Yes, federal legislation. You don’t see that very often. Yesterday Senator Kamala Harris introduced the EQUAL Defense Act to provide financial support for public defender systems across the county. Among other things, the proposed legislation aims to track and limit public defender workloads and create pay parity between public defenders and prosecutors within 5 years.

Dane County DHS v. T.S., 2019AP415, 5/9/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase of this TPR case, T.S. challenged the circuit court’s application of  §48.415(2), the CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights. He also argued that at the disposition phase the circuit court ignored one of the “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3) and substituted in an improper factor.  He lost on both counts.

State v. Dennis L. Schwind, 2019 WI 48, affirming a court of appeals’ summary disposition in 2017AP141-CR, 5/3/19; case activity (including briefs).

Section 973.09(3)(d) gives circuit courts authority to reduce or terminate a term of probation if 6 requirements are met. Schwind did not proceed under that statute because he couldn’t satisfy the requirements. So he argued that circuit courts also have inherent authority to reduce or terminate a term of probation for cause.  State v. Dowdy, 2012 WI 12, left this question open. This 5-2 opinion shuts it: No, circuit courts don’t have that authority.

In our ongoing effort to improve On Point, we have begun to edit the index of posts on our Archive page so that it is more user-friendly and easier for readers to find the elusive “Defense wins!” on specific issues. Chapter 51 is our guinea pig.

State v. Danny L. Waters, 2018AP1455, District 4, 5/2/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The argument Waters made at his refusal hearing wasn’t sufficiently clear to preserve the issue for appeal.

E.M.K. v. Z.T.R., 2018AP1896, District 2, 5/1/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

That’s the upshot of this court of appeals decision. Before terminating a biological father’s parental rights, there must be a finding that he “failed to assume parental responsibility” under §48.415(6). But what if there is a dispute about whether he is actually the biological father of the child? The court of appeals holds that if only one other guy was having sex with the mother when she became pregnant then the unverified, biological father had “reason to believe” he was in fact the father and should assume parental responsibility for the child.

State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .

¶1  We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.

On April 24, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following decisions: Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16 (involuntary medication of committed prisoners) Brown County Human Services v. B.P. & T.F., 2019 WI App 18 (requirements for pleading “abandonment” under § 48.415; summary judgment reversed)