On Point

State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2019 WI App 4; petition for review granted 6/11/19, reversed, 2020 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)

Neill pleaded to an OWI-3rd, which has a minimum fine of $600. Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)3. His plea came with two statutory enhancers: the one for having a BAC over .25 (Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)3.), and the one for having a child in a car (§ 346.65(2)(f)2.). The former quadruples the minimum fine, and the latter doubles it. So, what’s the minimum fine?

State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.

State v. Steven L. Buckingham, 2017AP1852-CR, 12/4/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs).

When the court of appeals’ dismisses an appellant’s arguments on the grounds that they are “conclusory,” it’s always wise to check the briefs. In this case,  Buckingham filed a fully-developed, well-organized 42-page brief in chief presenting 5 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim for post-conviction discovery.

State v. R.H., 2018AP1827, District 1, 12/4/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The standard of review doomed this appeal, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that R.H. failed to assume parental responsibility during the grounds phase of a TPR.

SCOWstats just crunched some numbers on oral arguments in SCOW.  Today’s post lists the names and firms of the lawyers who have presented the most arguments  in that court over the past 10 years. You won’t be surprised to find that attorneys from the Department of Justice dominate this list.  The SPD also fares well. […]

State v. Frederick Eugene Walker, 2018AP186-CR, District 1, 11/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Walker challenges his child sexual assault conviction, arguing the complaining witness’s mother improperly vouched for her daughter’s honesty. He also argues the trial court wrongly excluded evidence of the complaining witness’s sexual activity with another person. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

Robert W. Huber v. Gloria Anderson, et al., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1302 (Nov. 26, 2018)

Though not directly related to the day-to-day practice of criminal law, this decision may be of interest, if only for its holding regarding the time limits for a person to sue DOC based on claims it improperly kept the person in prison or on supervision.

State v. Dustin Charles Yenter, 2017AP2253, 11/29/18, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Yenter was convicted of OWI and driving with a PAC, both as first offenses. He wanted to argue that he had no choice but to drive drunk because he and his passengers had fled a fight in a rural area. The perpetrators chased them to his car and threw rocks at it, leaving them no time to decide who should drive. Yenter had the keys. They jumped into his car and he drove for 16 miles–until police stopped him.

State v. Noah Yang, 2018AP1461, 11/28/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Yang pleaded to misdemeanor witness intimidation. He had been charged with felony child abuse, and, from the jail, had called his mother, telling her that if a witness didn’t show up, the prosecutor would drop the charge. In a later call, Yang’s mother acknowledged to Yang that she had been in touch with the alleged victim’s mother; the alleged victim did not, in fact, show up for trial.

State v. Philip J. Hawley, 2015AP1113, District 4, 11/21/18; case activity (including briefs)

Our supreme court has, three times, set out to decide whether the  implied-consent statute supplies “consent” in a Fourth Amendment sense, such that it constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. Three times, it has failed to reach a binding majority on the question–or has it? The court of appeals, in this certification, suggests perhaps the supreme court has the answer already, depending how you count the votes.