On Point

Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2024 WI 21 (per curiam), 5/14/24, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Although many practitioners may have hoped that this case would resolve recurrent issues in appeals of involuntary medication orders, those issues will have to be resolved another day given SCOW’s order dismissing the petition as improvidently granted.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. A.G.O., 2023AP1305, 1307 & 1308, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another TPR case involving allegations of ineffective assistance, COA affirms based on hard-to-overcome legal standards.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson, No. 21-3332, 4/30/24

In an interesting § 1983 appeal, Sabo reveals a disturbing trend of miscalculated sentences by the Wisconsin DOC.

Keith C. Henyard v. Cheryl Eplett, No. 22-3086, 4/26/24

Although Henyard argues that his conviction must be reversed because the lawyer who represented him was also the judicial official who bound him over for trial, the Seventh Circuit denies relief and holds that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not erroneously apply governing federal law.

Winnebago County v. A.F.H., 2023AP1798, 5/1/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this chapter 51 appeal from an order for involuntary commitment and treatment, and an order denying postdisposition relief, the court of appeals affirms, concluding that even without the inadmissible hearsay, sufficient evidence existed supporting the underlying orders.

State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.

April was a busy month; we’ve tried to pull out those cases most relevant to our readers:

State v. Raymand L. Vannieuwenhoven, 2022AP882-CR, 4/30/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In this appeal from a cold case a murder conviction, the court issues a decision recommended for publication holding that law enforcement lawfully seized Vannieuwenhoven’s saliva and thereafter lawfully analyzed the DNA sample created from the saliva. The fact that law enforcement used a “ruse” to trick Vannieuwenhoven into licking an envelope under the false pretense that he was completing a voluntary survey about his “general satisfaction with the Oconto County Sheriff’s Office” did not make the state’s subsequent use of the saliva or Vannieuwenhoven’s DNA unlawful. While the facts are unique, the court explains that “our caselaw supports this conclusion.” Op., ¶2.

Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.

Robert J. Pope v. Je’Leslie Taylor, No. 23-2894, 5/6/24, affirming Pope v. Kemper, 21-CV-0346 (E.D. Wis. 9/1/23)

In a refreshing defense win that cuts through the procedural weeds and directly attacks the unjust nature of Pope’s treatment by Wisconsin’s appellate courts, the Seventh Circuit wastes no time in affirming the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.