On Point

Today’s edition of SCOWstats takes a look at how the voting records of Justices Kelly and Rebecca Bradley compare to the records of their predecessors, Justices Prosser and Crooks. Click here for all the details.

State v. C.L.H., 2017AP1278-1280, 9/6/17, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court terminated C.L.H.’s parental rights to her biological children, A.L.H., H.H. and M.J.H. The sole issue on appeal was whether the circuit court’s refusal to place the kids with C.H. (their maternal grandfather) and E.B. (his fiancée) amounted to an erroneous exercise of discretion.  The court of appeals said “no.”

State v. J.M.W., 2017AP158, District 1, 9/6/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.W. contends the steps in the proceedings terminating his parental rights occurred out of order and therefore the circuit court lost competency to conduct a disposition hearing. The court of appeals holds he waived a competency challenge by not raising it in the circuit court first.

State v. Robert Torres, 2017 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)

It’s unclear why this opinion is recommended for publication–it seems to be a pretty straightforward application of the law to a particular fact situation.

State v. Michael L. Cox, 2016AP1745-CR, District 2, 8/29/17, certification granted 10/17/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 67; case activity (including briefs)

Issue certified

This case raises a single question: whether a sentencing court retains any discretion under Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2015-16), to waive DNA surcharges for crimes committed after January 1, 2014.

As the new U.S. Supreme Court term approaches there’s been a lot of commentary about Carpenter v. United States, which presents the momentous question of whether authorities need a warrant to seize and search historical cellphone records that reveal the location and movement of a cellphone user. Here are some links to that commentary:

State v. Michel L. Wortman, 2017 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)

A glitch in the OWI penalty statute appears to suggest that OWI 7th and greater offenses don’t allow for a fine, but only for the imposition of the forfeiture provided for first-offense OWI. The court of appeals concludes otherwise. The court also rejects Wortman’s claim that he was under arrest when a sheriff’s deputy transported him back to the scene of the accident he was in.

State v. Donald L. White, 2017AP188-CR, 8/23/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

White argued that his plea colloquy was defective because the circuit court did not (1) sufficiently describe the nature of the charge against him, (2) ascertain his education or level of comprehension, especially of the constitutional rights that he was waiving, (3) advise him that he was not bound by the plea agreement and could impose the maximum penalty. He relied primarily on State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906. The court of appeals distinguished White from Brown and affirmed the decision to deny the motion for plea withdrawal without a hearing.

State v. Michael A. Johnson, 2017AP331-CR, District 2, 8/23/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officer Baldwin stopped Johnson for failing to dim his headlights, then cited him for that and failing to provide proof of insurance for the car he was driving (his mom’s). Baldwin told Johnson that he was free to go, so Johnson started to walk away. Baldwin asked “do you have drugs, weapons or alcohol in the car?” Johnson replied “no.” Baldwin asked if he could search the car.  Johnson replied that the car did not belong to him. 

State v. A.O., 2016AP2186, District 1, 8/22/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In deciding whether to waive a juvenile into adult court a judge must consider the criteria set out in § 938.18(5). The judge has the discretion to determine how much weight to give to each criterion. J.A.L. v. State, 162 Wis. 2d 940, 960, 471 N.W.2d 493 (1991). According to A.O., the juvenile court in his case didn’t properly apply § 938.18(5)(c), which obliges the court to consider the adequacy and suitability of facilities and services available in the juvenile justice system to treat the juvenile and protect the public. According to the court of appeals, the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion.