On Point

Winnebago County v. Donna H., 2013AP80, District 2, 7/31/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the supreme court’s recent decision in Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, the court of appeals concludes Winnebago County failed to show Donna H. is not competent to refuse medication. The applicable statute, § 55.14(1)(b), requires the County to show that the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication have been explained to the individual subject to a possible involuntary medication order.

State v. Shipria C., 2013AP637, 2013AP638, & 2013AP639, District 1, 8/6/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP637; 2013AP638; 2013AP639

In a fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals rejects Shipria C.’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove she would not meet the court-ordered conditions for the return of her children within nine months of the fact-finding hearing.

Dane County DHS v. Wesley J., 2013AP1226, District 4, 8/1/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856, does not erect a general bar to summary judgment in TPR cases alleging abandonment as the grounds for termination:

¶15      I disagree with Wesley’s assertion that Steven V.

State v. Raylene A. Brinkmeier, 2013AP15-CR, District 4, 8/1/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police had probable cause under § 343.303 to request Brinkmeier to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT):

¶13     Contrary to Brinkmeier’s argument, the evidence supporting probable cause in this appeal does not differ significantly from the evidence in [County of Jefferson v.

Town of Freedom v. Matthew W. Fellinger, 2013AP614, District 3, 8/6/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Fellinger argues that field sobriety tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment because “[a]n inherent right as a human being is to control and coordinate the actions of [his or her] own body[,]” and, therefore “a fundamental expectation of privacy is implicated when a person is subject to the performance of [field sobriety tests].” (¶12).

Court of Appeals certification, review granted 11/26/13; case activity

Issue certified:

Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) require that a commitment petition be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and allege that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 additionally require that the commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged in the petition as the predicate offense,

State v. Langston C. Austin, 2013 WI App 96; case activity

In this important case the court of appeals holds that the pattern jury instruction for self-defense in cases involving reckless or negligent crimes does not properly apprise the jury that the state has the burden to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Austin stabbed two people during a confrontation on a street and was charged with two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon.

State v. Ryan Erik Diggins, 2012AP526-CR, District 1, 7/30/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

There was no objectively reasonable suspicion that Diggins was loitering in violation of Milwaukee’s loitering ordinance, § 106-31(1), where Diggins was seen standing for five minutes, doing nothing, at a gas station– “a place to which the public is invited”–and then moved across the street to a bus stop–“another equally public place”–even though both places were in a high crime area:

¶13      Here,

State v. Gabriel Griffin, 2012AP2631-CR, District 1, 7/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Agreeing with State v. Gerondale, 2009AP1237-CR and 2009AP1238-CR (Wis. Ct. App Nov. 3, 2009) (unpublished), and State v. Ash, No. 2012AP381-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2012) (unpublished), that there is a conflict in § 973.01 which affects the structure of enhanced misdemeanor sentences,

State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2012AP929-CR, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy

Thums was charged with offering money to Trepanier, a fellow prison inmate, to kill Thums’s ex-wife and others associated with her. (¶2). In response to Trepanier’s questions about how he’d be paid, Thums told Trepanier to burglarize his ex-wife’s mother’s home and then drew a map depicting the location of that home and his ex-wife’s home.