On Point

State v. Joshua John Hansen, 2021AP1006 & 2021AP1620-CR, District 4, 5/5/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A blue light illuminating the rear license plate is an apparent equipment violation and thus justified the stop of Hansen’s car. Once stopped, the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate whether Hansen was operating while intoxicated.

State v. Ryan L. Bessert, 2021AP1062-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly applied § 972.11(2m)(a) under the circumstances of this case when allowing the complaining child witness to testify via closed circuit television, so Bessert’s right to confrontation was not violated. In addition, assuming without deciding that Bessert’s right to a public trial was violated because the courthouse doors were locked when the circuit court issued its verdict, the court employed an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation by timely re-announcing the verdicts in open court.

State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer, 2020AP1406-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kothbauer challenges his trial lawyer’s representation in a prosecution for operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient or, even if he was, the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.

Milwaukee County v. A.J.G., 2021AP1338, 5/3/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

When a circuit court orders a ch. 51 recommitment, it must specify which standard of dangerousness the patient will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn. Langlade County. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 941 N.W.2d 277. This case holds that a circuit court must also specify the standard of dangerousness that the patient meets when ordering an initial commitment.

State v. A.A., 2022AP311, 5/3/22. District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.W. was born at 26 weeks with a host of serious medical problems. At discharge, he needed 24-hour care. T.W. couldn’t meet those needs because she had her own challenges.  She pled “no contest” to continuing CHIPS during the grounds phase of her TPR case. When the court terminated her rights to T.W., she appealed arguing that it had weighed the evidence incorrectly.

State v. Evan J. Schnoll, 2021AP1119-CR, 4/28/22; District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2020, Schnoll was charged with OWI 2nd. He challenged the validity of his prior OWI, which occurred in California, arguing that it could not be counted under Wisconsin law. The circuit court rejected his argument and counted the California conviction. The court of appeals granted Schnoll’s petition for leave to appeal but now affirms the circuit court.

Manitowoc County v. K.H., 2020AP2150 and Manitowoc County v. K.R., 2021AP90-93; 4/27/22; District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity K.R. appealed a December 2020 order instituting permanency plans for his 4 children. His mother also appealed one of the permanency plans. They claimed that they were denied their due process right to meaningful […]

State v. Joseph M. Marks, 2022 WI App 20; case activity (including briefs)

Given the facts in this case, the court of appeals rejects the defendant’s claim that an audiovisual recording of a child’s statement was inadmissible under § 908.08 because investigators merged a separate audio file of the interview with the video to correct a problem with the original audio.

On April 28, 2022, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Dominic A. Caldiero, 2021AP1163-CR, District 4, 4/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

When he drove in 2019, Caldiero was still “subject to” a 2015 court order under § 343.301 (2013-14) restricting his operating privilege to cars with an ignition interlock device (IID) because the time period on that restriction does not begin to run till DOT issues him a driver’s license, and that hadn’t happened as of the date he was driving.