On Point

State v. Matthew M. Moskopf, 2013AP771-CR, District 2, 4/2/14; court of appeals decision (one judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police had collective knowledge of specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion to stop Moskopf’s vehicle where two 911 calls to the police department dispatcher–one from a bartender, another from an off-duty cop–reported that a man had been trying to get back into a bar he had been kicked out of,

Mareza L. v. Kim M.P., 2013AP1382, District 1, 4/1/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The plain language of § 48.46(2) limits the time for any motion to reopen a judgment terminating parental rights, regardless of the grounds for the motion. Thus, even though Mareza now claims her voluntary termination was not, in fact, voluntary, her failure to bring a motion to reopen the judgment within the statute’s time limits means the circuit court properly denied the motion.

Barron County DHHS v. Maria A., 2013AP2735, District 3, 4/1/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the highly deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims, State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, ¶30, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Maria failed to assume parental responsibility for her daughter,

Those of you with petitions for review pending, start watching your mail or the WSCCA site around April 16th.  That the date of SCOW’s next petitions conference.

April is the last month of argument for SCOW’s 2013-2014 term.  Here is the argument schedule for cases involving issues of interest to folks interested in indigent defense:

April 3, 2014, 9:45 a.m.       State v. Andres Romero-Georgana, 2012AP55 (Defense counsel: Sara Brelie,

United States v. James Alvin Castleman, USSC No. 12-1371, 3/26/14, reversing and remanding United States v. Castleman, 695 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2012); case activity

As noted in our analysis of SCOTUS’s decision to grant certiorari, the issue in this case is:

Whether [Castleman’s] Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C.

State v. Jimmy L. Powell, 2013AP1111-CR, 3/27/14, District 4; (not recommended for publication); case activity

This appeal stems from a 1st-degree reckless injury conviction.  Powell, a drug dealer, ran over and/or cut his client’s throat during a deal. His enthusiastic, 38-page initial brief raises 7 issues for review.  This post examines the court of appeals’ decision on 2 of them.

“Other Acts” Evidence Issue: Whether the circuit court erred in admitting “other acts”

State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2014 WI App 42, petition for review granted 11/14/14, reversed, 2015 WI 66; case activity

When sentence credit for time spent in custody before the defendant was sentenced is not granted until after the defendant has been revoked from parole and reincarcerated, the plain language of § 302.11(7)(am) and (b) requires DOC to apply the credit to the remaining period of parole,

State ex rel. Aman Singh v. Paul Kemper, 2014 WI App 43, petitions for review and cross review granted 11/4/15, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 2016 WI 67; case activity

When Singh committed, or was convicted and sentenced for, his offenses, he was eligible for early release under statutes enacted by 2009 Wisconsin Act 28. But by the time he arrived at prison,

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a decision on the parties’ motions for reconsideration in State v. Johnson, 2013 WI 59, 348 Wis. 2d 450, 832 N.W.2d 609 (per curiam), the decision from last term that declined the state’s request to overrule State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993). The decision on reconsideration is described and discussed in an update to our post on the decision from last term.

Mary E.B. v. Cecil M., 2014AP160, District 2, 3/26/14; court  of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted, 9/18/14, appeal voluntarily dismissed 12/17/14; case activity

The circuit court properly found that a mother who petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights did not prove the father failed to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6). The court of appeals rejects the mother’s arguments that the circuit court applied an erroneous legal standard and that its decision is not supported by the record.