Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Published 2007

State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118) Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31 For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions: ¶10      Schultz contends that the following… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Reconfinement – Lack of Authority to Consider CIP or ERP Eligibility

State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser Issue/Holding: ¶17   From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Dane co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4 court of appeals, 3/29/07 (published) Issue/Holding: ¶19 Dyanne acknowledges that the CHIPS order makes reference to “warnings” and contains the statutory language defining the possible grounds for termination. She also does not dispute that the order contains the conditions that were necessary for… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4, 3/29/07 (published) Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits, Generally Issue/Holding:1: Generally, compliance with a statutory TPR time limit is mandatory, such that non-compliance results in lost circuit court competency absent an applicable exception, ¶5, citing Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P.S… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published) Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in terminating rights: ¶25 Teodoro finally argues that at the dispositional stage, the trial court erroneously determined that termination of his parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. This determination is… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published) Issue/Holding: Conditions imposed for non-termination of a deported parent’s children weren’t impossible, notwithstanding parent’s inability to return to country: ¶23 But as the circuit court noted, “Mexico is not prison” and Teodoro remained free to work on and meet many of the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Miranda – Custody

State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07 For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Custody, for purposes of Miranda, requires that the suspect’s freedom be restricted to a degree associated with formal arrest, and is as gauged by a multi-factor test articulated in State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124, ¶¶13-14. None of those… Read More

{ 0 comments }