On Point

Outagamie County DHHS v. L.C.E., 2023AP929, District 3, 6/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that “Lauren” was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).

City of Hartford v. Edward H. White, 2023AP1813 & 2023AP1814, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although White tries to argue that he was under an unconstitutional constructive arrest when initially seized for suspicion of an OWI offense, COA finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.

State v. Les Paul Henderson, 2023AP2079-CR, 5/31/24, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although Henderson fails to persuade COA that a JOC making him eligible for early release programming controls, he does live to fight another day given COA’s order that he receive a hearing at which time the circuit court will have to exercise its discretion to determine his eligibility.

State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.

Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16. 

State v. Zackery J. Olson, 2023AP369-CR, 5/22/24, District II (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

Olson’s erroneous exercise of discretion claim regarding the court’s decision to impose a prison sentence instead of probation fares about as well as you would expect. The court of appeals reviews and details the record supporting the court’s decision and affirms because Olson failed to meet his burden to prove the sentencing court erred.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, 5/21/24, District III (not recommended for publication);petition for review granted case activity

Although this defense win is unpublished and therefore nonprecedential, COA’s analysis and synthesis of the law regarding this commonly litigated issue is an important read for litigators considering such claims.

Portage County v. D.A., 2023AP1237, 1255 & 1272, 5/9/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although “David” presents a superficially knotty jurisdictional argument, COA ultimately holds that he has forfeited this otherwise non-meritorious legal issue.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.

State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.