On Point

Dane Co. DHS v. Angela M. K., 2012AP579, District 4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Angela M.K.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Angela’s challenge to her termination-of-rights plea to grounds. She argued she didn’t fully understand the CHIPS element, namely  that “there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not meet [conditions for children’s return] within the 9-month period following the fact-finding hearing,” § 48.415(2)(a)3.

Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2012AP99, District 3, 5/22/12, WSC review granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Melanie M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain involuntary medication order.

¶11      We reject Melanie’s argument that the expert needs to iterate the specific words of the statute in order for the evidence to be sufficient.   

State v. Tyler T., 2012 WI 52, affirming unpublished decision; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate;  case activity

While the practice of allowing ex parte prosecutorial input at the final staffing of a juvenile waiver investigation can’t be recommended, it is nonetheless not impermissible as a matter of law.

¶4   We conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Tyler’s request to strike the waiver investigation report prepared by the DHHS.  

Holder v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez, USSC No. 10-1542, 5/21/12, reversing 411 Fed. Appx. 121 and 399 Fed. Appx. 313

The Attorney General has discretion under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a) to allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the U.S., if the alien satisfies three criteria: minimum of five years as a lawful permanent resident; continuous residence in the U.S. for at least seven years after lawful admission,

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.

¶13  Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.  

on review of unpublished court of appeals decision; for Gracia: Tracey A. Wood; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Community Caretaker / OWI Enhancer – Collateral Attack 

Issues (Composed by On Point): 

Whether the community caretaker doctrine supported entry into Gracia’s bedroom after the police linked him to a serious traffic accident.

Whether Gracia’s waiver of counsel in a prior OWI conviction used as a penalty enhancer was valid,

Karen Baker v. Department of Health Services, 2012 WI App 72 (recommended for publication); case activity

Service, by Mail – Generally 

¶3 n. 2:

… In the absence of a statutory provision, the rule in Wisconsin is that service of notice by mail is not effective until the party receives it.  Hotel Hay Corp. v. Milner Hotels, 255 Wis.

State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity

Mootness Doctrine – Generally 

¶8 n. 2:

The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.  An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.  

State v. Shannon J. Perronne, 2011AP1731-CR, District 2, 5/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perrone: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

When the principal State’s witness failed to appear at a suppression hearing, the trial court ordered suppression and dismissed the charge. The State then refiled the complaint and the trial court vacated the suppression order, eventually denying suppression on the ground that probable cause supported arrest.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Aaron B.: Jeremy C. Perri, Hannah Blair Schieber, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Guardianship – Placement Hearing – Personal Appearance 

Failure to object to ward’s inability to appear at guardianship placement hearing waived argument that court should not have held hearing in ward’s absence.

¶7        Wisconsin Stat. § 55.10(2) provides that a ward must attend a protective placement hearing unless “after a personal interview,