On Point

State v. Jonathan Bell, 2006 WI App 30
For Bell: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether intervention of the local prosecutor to obtain a second DOC evaluation, which resulted in a referral for SVP commitment after the first DOC evaluation determined insufficient likelihood of reoffending, violated ch. 980 or due process.

Holding:

¶11      Our supreme court defined the scope of the district attorney’s authority in Byers.

Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, 2006 WI 86

Issue/Holding:

¶14      By granting deference to agency interpretations, the court has not abdicated, and should not abdicate, its authority and responsibility to interpret statutes and decide questions of law. Some cases, however, mistakenly fail to state, before launching into a discussion of the levels of deference, that the interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law to be determined by a court. 

State ex rel. Richard A. Ford (II) v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, PFR filed 9/11/06; on appeal following remand in 2004 WI App 22 (“Ford I”)
For Ford: James R. Troupis
For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A client who has strategically foregone a potentially meritorious postconviction challenge is not entitled to the option of a “partial” no-merit report discussing remaining aspects of the case:

¶12 We conclude,

State v. Thomas A. Mikulance, 2006 WI App 69
Pro se

Issue/Holding: A “narrow” exception to the serial litigation bar of § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) is established by State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 27, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998), which “applies only where the defendant files a motion alleging that the State has failed to prove the prior conviction necessary to sustain the habitual criminal status (by proof or by admission) or when the penalty imposed is longer than permitted by law for a repeater,” ¶¶1,

State v. Ricky J. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11

Issue/Holding: Fortier’s failure to respond to no merit report does not, under the circumstances, work serial litigation bar to subsequent, arguably meritorious challenge to sentence:

¶15      Fortier contends that he should not be precluded from raising the issue of a sentence illegally raised upon resentencing, even though he failed to raise it in a response to the no-merit report at the time of the original appeal. 

State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, affirming unpublished opinion

Issue: Whether a TPR court lost competency to proceed because the fact-finding hearing was held more than 45 days after the contested plea hearing, the time limit set by § 48.422(2).

Holding: A continuance of the fact-finding hearing beyond the 45-day limit may properly be granted under § 48.315(2), as to which good cause was established on this record,

Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children.

Holding:

¶40      In deciding the issue of foundation, the circuit court seemed fixated on the psychological tests that Dr.

State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264

Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary.

Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe that the State proved the six-month period of abandonment, the trial court’s refusal to change the verdict answer or to grant a new trial was not ‘clearly wrong,’” ¶1.

State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264

Issue/Holding:¶1 n. 4:

Lamont argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the guardian ad litem filed the notice of appeal and the State simply joined in the appeal instead of the other way around. We reject Lamont’s contention.  WISCONSIN STAT. § 48.235(7) plainly states that the guardian ad litem “may appeal,

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266

Issue/Holding:

¶2        Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoted sources and one internal quotation mark omitted).