On Point

State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here.

State v. Nicholas C. Wegner, 2017AP2236-CR, District 2, 10/23/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer testified he was proceeding through a traffic roundabout when Wegner, ignoring the yield signs posted for vehicles entering the roundabout, entered directly in front of the officer and caused the officer to have to brake to avoid hitting Wegner. (¶4). This conduct justified the officer’s stop of Wegner.

State v. M.G., 2018AP835, 10/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.G. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, M.W. He stipulated to unfitness on the ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). On appeal, he contends the circuit court erroneously imported the required finding for this ground–that he lacked a “substantial parental relationship” with the child–into the third factor of the disposition phase, which concerns only “substantial relationship(s)” between the child and M.G. or others in his family. See Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c).

Fond du Lac County v. S.R.H., 2018AP1088-FT, 10/17/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

At the beginning of a Chapter 51 extension hearing, S.R.H. told the court that he wanted to fire his attorney, and he asked for a new one. When that failed, he asked the court “Your honor, could I go pro se?” The court ignored his request. The hearing proceeded, S.R.H. was recommitted, and the court of appeals here affirms in a decision worthy of SCOW’s review.

City of Watertown v. Jeffrey Donald Perschke, 2018AP555, District 4, 10/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Perschke after the radar device the officer was using clocked Perschke going 38 in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. Perschke claims the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him because the radar wasn’t working properly, but the circuit court’s finding to the contrary dooms Perschke’s argument.

State v. Jesse J. Kain, 2018AP951, 10/17/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kain appeals his drunk driving conviction, arguing the officer that stopped him lacked the probable cause necessary to ask him to take a preliminary breath test. (See Cty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 316, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999).)

State v. Kole R. Eichinger, 2017AP1845-1847-CR, 10/16/18, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case highlights an expunction issue that SCOW still needs to resolve. Prior to 2014, circuit courts often delayed deciding expunction until they saw how a defendant did on probation. State v. Matasek, 2014 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 changed that practice.  It clarified that courts must decide whether to order expunction at the time of sentencing.  What about all of the defendants who were expressly told at sentencing that they could apply for expunction after they completed probation?

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2017AP2006-CR, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from state’s petition for review)

Does asking a lawfully stopped motorist whether he is carrying any weapons, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, unlawfully extend a routine traffic stop?

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2017AP1518, petition for review of unpublished opinion granted 10/9/18; case activity

Issue:

Was Randall entitled to suppression of the results of a test of a blood sample that she voluntarily gave to police under the implied consent law because she informed the lab that she was withdrawing her consent before the lab had analyzed the blood to determine the presence and quantity of drugs and alcohol?

Rock County DHS v. L.H., 2018AP1308, 10/11/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H. challenges the circuit court’s finding that the county department established continuing-CHIPS grounds for termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She says the county can’t have met its burden to show a “substantial likelihood” she wouldn’t meet the conditions of return within nine months, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (recently amended), because the court said “I don’t know” whether she’d meet the conditions.