Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Court of appeals issues important decision on fumbled e-filings
State v. Ayodeji J. Aderemi, 2023 WI App 8; case activity (including briefs)
This appeal concerns a problem many will encounter. An alleged attempt to e-file a document apparently failed. Here, the document was the State’s Information. Aderemi argued that the fumble caused the State to miss its filing deadline, so under §971.01(2) the circuit court had to dismiss the case without prejudice. In a split decision, recommended for publication, the majority (White and Brash) ruled for the State. The dissenter (Dugan) faults the majority for ignoring important parts of Wisconsin’s e-filing statute. He would reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
SCOW will review scope of double jeopardy bar to retrial
State v. James P. Killian, 2020AP2012, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 1/20/23; case activity
Issues presented (from state’s PFR):
Has the State exposed Killian to multiple prosecutions for the same offense in violation of double-jeopardy principles?
Reasonable inferences from doctor’s testimony sufficient to sustain recommitment
Winnebago County v. D.J.S., 2022AP1281, District 2 (one-judge decision ineligible for publication), case activity
Accompanied by a familiar sounding caveat that “it certainly would have been better if the County had presented more evidence and the circuit court had been more detailed and specific in its oral determination,” the court of appeals rejects D.J.S.’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the extension of his Chapter 51 involuntary civil commitment. (Opinion, ¶8).
Circular reasoning upheld as mother testifies about father’s suspected heroin use during TPR trial
N.D. v. E.S., 2022AP1084, District 2, 01/25/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Nancy (N.D.) petitioned to terminate Ed’s (E.D.’s) parental rights on the grounds that he abandoned their daughter, Kim. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1). At trial, Ed asserted a “good cause” defense that Nancy prevented him from having contact with Kim, and in response, Nancy was allowed to testify that the reason for her interference was Ed’s “heroin use.” Despite the fact that Nancy had no personal knowledge of Ed’s suspected heroin use, the circuit court ruled, and the court of appeals agrees, that the fact that Ed admitted to being drug tested was sufficient foundation for Nancy’s testimony. As a result, Ed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to this evidence fails.
January 2023 publication list
On January 25, 2023, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal-law related decision: State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4 (affirming suppression of evidence seized during warrantless search of defendant’s Dropbox account)
TPR summary judgment motion may be filed anytime before trial
Brown County DHHS v. T.R., 2022AP1094, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a TPR proceeding a motion for summary judgment may be filed any time before trial, as prescribed in § 48.297(1) and (2), and is not governed by the time limit for summary judgment motions prescribed in § 802.08(1).
Evidence proved County made reasonable efforts to provide services to parent under CHIPS order
Rusk County DHHS v. R.S., 2022AP1530, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.S. (“Ruth”) argues that at the trial on the County’s petition to terminate her parental rights, the County Department of Health and Human Services didn’t prove it made reasonable efforts to provide the services ordered in the original CHIPS dispositional order. The court of appeals rejects the claim.
COA rejects hearsay arguments, affirms recommitment under 2nd standard of dangerousness
Rock Count v. H.V., 2022AP1585-FT, 1/20/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is an appeal from a ch. 51 recommitment under the 2nd standard– dangerousness to others. H.V.’s main argument was that the circuit court erroneously relied on hearsay to find that he is dangerous when not committed. The court of appeals disagreed and further found the county’s evidence sufficient to support the commitment.
Evidence at recommitment hearing established mental illness and dangerousness under 3rd standard
Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2022AP1207, 1/18/23, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal involves a recommitment under the 3rd standard of dangerousness. G.M.M. argued that the county presented insufficient evidence of both mental illness and dangerousness. She also argued that the circuit court failed to make the findings required under Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶59, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals rejected all 3 claims.
Trial counsel’s advice about immigration consequences was sufficient
State v. Ahmed A.M. Al Bawi, 2021AP432-CR, District 3, 1/18/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Al Bawi’s trial attorney was not ineffective in advising him about the immigration consequences of his plea.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.