On Point

State v. F.E.L., 2017AP2489, 6/5/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

F.E.L. seeks to withdraw his no contest plea at the grounds phase of his TPR proceeding. He contends there was an insufficient factual basis for the single ground he pled to, failure to assume parental responsibility.

On May 31, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision: State v. Robert P. Vesper, 2018 WI App 31 (sentencing judge didn’t need to give separate reasons for imposing a fine)

State v. Anthony Iven Jones, A/K/A Hashim Hasan, 2017AP364, 6/5/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury found Jones guilty of bail jumping. one of his bond conditions had been that he stay 500 feet away from his former wife. He made a threatening phone call to her and was discovered by a police officer to be “approximately 92 feet away” from her house. He first claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, but the court does not agree, based on the essential facts just noted. (¶12).

State v. Anthony Donte Dixon, 2017AP2221-2222-CR, 6/5/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

Dixon wasn’t happy with his trial lawyer. They hadn’t communicated before the final pre-trial conference. When they did communicate, Dixon told his lawyer that he wanted him to contact several alibi witnesses and provided their names and numbers. Two witnesses didn’t return counsel’s call. One “simply gave her information” [no explanation of that means.] On the day of the trial, counsel informed the court that Dixon wanted to fire him and was prepared to get a new lawyer on his own. The trial court denied the request so Dixon tried his case pro se.

Winnebago County v. Lesa L. Maus, 2017AP1979, 5/30/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Maus challenges her stop on the ground that the citizen witness who called in a driver going the wrong way on the interstate said the car was beige, but her car, the one stopped, was black.

Dane County v. Damian A. Bethke, 2017AP1284, 5/31/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bethke was acquitted of his OWI charge, so this is an appeal only of his refusal, and his claim is that the officer who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

County of Door v. Donald L. McPhail, 2017AP1079, 5/30/18, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

When McPhail was arrested for first-offense OWI, he refused a blood test. The arresting officer gave him the notice of intent to withdraw his operating privilege, which told McPhail he had 10 days to request a hearing, and that he should send his request to 1201 S. Duluth Ave in Sturgeon Bay. But that’s the Sheriff’s department, not the clerk of courts, which is at 1205 (though the two are part of the same complex).

State v. Jeffrey A. Jacobi, 2017AP1816, 5/30/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Based on facts specific to this case, the court of appeals held that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Jacobi was intoxicated when he bumped into a car while driving his motorcycle. It also wagged its finger at appellate counsel for carelessness in compiling the record and for misrepresenting the record. It also noted his failure to file a reply brief.

State v. P.J., 2018AP376-2018AP381, 5/30/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

P.J. challenged the termination of her parental rights to her 6 children on the grounds that the circuit court failed to appropriately consider the substantial bond  that she had with her children and improperly relied on testimony by the various foster parents that the children would continue to have contact with each other. The court of appeals affirmed.

Scott Schmidt v. Brian Foster, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1727, 5/29/18, reversing Schmidt v. Pollard, No. 13-CV-1150 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2017); reversed en banc 12/20/18

A criminal defendant is entitled to counsel at all “critical stages” of the case. You probably think that a hearing, before a murder trial, that determines whether the accused will get to present his only defense counts as such a “critical stage.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, however, “easily reject[ed]” that notion in this (published) case. The Seventh Circuit now disagrees, saying the Wisconsin decision “unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and, frankly, ignored reality.”