On Point

State v. N.H., 2024AP597, District I, 9/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.W. forecloses N.H’s TPR appeal that his plea was involuntary because the circuit court misled him regarding the burden of proof at the dispositional phase.

E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.

July brought another bevy of interesting cases. As usual, we’ve tried to select those most relevant to our audience:

Brown County v. L.M.R., 2023AP2314, District III, 8/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects all of L.M.R.’s challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this Chapter 51 case given some less-than favorable facts.

State v. Terron Anthony Clayborn, 2023AP283-CR, 8/20/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a case presenting a common postconviction fact pattern alleging an improper promise by counsel, COA affirms despite postconviction testimony largely corroborating the defendant’s account.

State v. Rodriguez, 2024AP481, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude relevant, but inadmissible, evidence at refusal hearing because witness lacked personal knowledge.

State v. Joseph B. Venable, 2023AP1367, 8/15/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court judgment convicting Venable of first offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), due to his use of prescription medications.

State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence.  She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle.  The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.

State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock, 2022AP2153-CR, 8/8/24, District IV (authored); case activity

Sehrbrock, convicted of robbery with use of force as PTAC, appeals the judgment of conviction and order denying his postconviction motion in which he challenged a condition of probation requiring that an ignition interlock device be installed on any motor vehicle that he owns or operates. He argued that the IID condition was unreasonable and its term was harsh and excessive. The COA affirms in a 2-1 decision.

State v. Kenneth W. Hill, 2022AP1718-CR, 8/6/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

The state appealed after the circuit court denied its motion seeking to admit Hill’s 1984 conviction from Minnesota for “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(b)2. at his trials for two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reverses and remands with directions, outlining the relevant analysis, holding that the admissible evidence includes only the fact of the conviction, not the underlying details of the prior case, and concluding that the Sullivan analysis does not apply. (¶2).