On Point

Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24, case activity (including briefs)

SCOW accepts a case poised to resolve ongoing conflict in COA with respect to involuntary medication orders in Chapter 51 appeals.

Columbia County v. Carter Ray Smits, 2023AP241, 12/7/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the analyst’s testimony that, given the margin of error for the lab result, it was “equally likely” Smits was under as opposed to over the legal limit, COA affirms.

State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.

State v. T.J., 2023AP1239-1242, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite  a battery of legal challenges, COA swiftly and efficiently marches toward affirmance in this TPR appeal.

State v. Antonio G. Ramirez, Jr., 2021AP1590, 11/15/23, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

There are some serious unresolved confrontation questions around statements alleged victims make in settings involving both medical treatment and criminal investigation: often, during a police-instigated physical examination after an alleged physical or sexual assault. Here, despite turning out a 52-page, recommended-for-publication opinion, the court of appeals fails meaningfully to address any.

This month features some interesting Fourth Amendment cases, a few decisions on guns, as well as a successful challenge to a Wisconsin statute which prohibits the “harassment” of hunters.

State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.

Racine County v. B.L.M., 2023AP757, 11/22/23, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite a creative challenge to a continued protective placement order, COA rejects any argument that the circuit court lost competency by failing to timely reappoint a GAL in this protective placement appeal.

Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., 2023AP1229-1232, 11/16/23, District IV (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In Kenosha Cnty. DHHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, ¶56, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, the court overturned a TPR order premised on a parent’s failure to meet “an impossible condition of return, without consideration of any other relevant facts and circumstances particular to the parent.” R.H.H. argued that he was likewise subject to an “impossible” condition of return because the dispositional order that denied him placement or visitation with his four children required him to complete sex offender treatment and domestic violence programming. The court rejects his due process-based claim, for multiple reasons, including that R.H.H., failed to introduce evidence to support his assertions that his confinement in prison or his pending criminal appeal made it “impossible” for him to meet his conditions of return. (Op., ¶21).

Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, 18-CV-400-wmc (W.D. Wis. 11/6/23).

Having recently prevailed on a judicial bias claim in state court, Stowe makes a return appearance to the blog on his 2018 federal habeas petition. Unfortunately, the Western District of Wisconsin denied the petition, which had been pending for close 5 years. The petition sought relief from the Wisconsin courts’ denial of his 2016  petition for conditional release under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). In a novel reading of a nearly three-decades old Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800, 532 N.W.2d 94 (1995) (“Randall I”), the federal court concludes that “one can reasonably read Randall I to require a showing of both mental illness and dangerousness.”