On Point

State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.

Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms.

State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).

Sawyer County v. P.D.F., 2022AP2007, 11/7/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although P.D.F. successfully persuades COA that the circuit court erroneously concluded  he did not understand the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to medication, the record nonetheless shows that he was incapable of applying an understanding.

Walworth County v. E.W., 2023AP289, 11/1/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Defying the recent trend of hearsay victories in Chapter 51 appeals, COA rejects E.W.’s attempt to argue that the admission of hearsay evidence at his final hearing constituted “plain error.”

State v. Michael Pruett Rudolf, 2022AP157, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Rudolf swerve over the fog line and nearly strike the curb several times. Rudolf then drove lawfully for 3/4 of a mile before pulling into the parking lot of a closed auto dealership at 10:40 p.m. The officer detained Rudolf.  Lawful stop?

Jefferson County DHS v. C.T.S., 2023AP1404, 11/2/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.T.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his son, K.S. The court of appeals affirms, holding the county adduced sufficient evidence of the continuing CHIPS ground and acted within its discretion in weighing the dispositional factors.

J.S. v. J.T., 2023AP38-39, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jack” filed for termination of “Jasmine’s” parental rights to their two children. At trial, Jasmine’s counsel didn’t object when Jack’s lawyer elicited testimony from a social worker that the children “seemed to love it” at the house Jack shared with his wife, that the couple were transparent, and that they had a “great support person.” The court of appeals doesn’t decide whether this was deficient performance, instead concluding that Jasmine didn’t show she was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony against her.

D.T.S. v. B.E.C., 2023AP1081, 10/5/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.E.C. is A.R.G.’s birth mother. D.T.S. is A.R.G.’s father. D.T.S. had sole physical custody after her mother left A.R.G. in his care when A.R.G. was two. Later, D.T.S. remarried and moved for termination of B.E.C.’s rights to A.R.G., alleging, as relevant here, abandonment. His new wife also petitioned to adopt the girl. The jury found B.E.C. unfit and the circuit court terminated her rights.

State v. Matthew E. Sullivan, 2023AP2138, 10/19/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Prior to his refusal hearing, Sullivan requested a continuance so he could obtain counsel. The circuit court denied his request. Sullivan then represented himself and challenged the sought after revocation by relying on the affirmative defense that a “physical disability or diseased unreleated to the use of alcohol” caused him to refuse the test. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a)5.c. The circuit court rejected Sullivan’s affirmative defense and revoked his license. The court of appeals affirms.