State v. Brian v. Rotolo, 2019AP2061-CR, petition for review granted 12/28/20; case activity
Issue presented (adapted from the petition for review):
In State v. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, ¶6, 346 Wis. 2d 523, 828 N.W.2d 552, SCOW held that the test for Fifth Amendment Miranda custody is whether “a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview and leave the scene.” Does this test for determining Miranda custody also apply when police legally detain a suspect under Terry? [continue reading…]
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2020AP616-CR, petition for bypass granted 12/28/20; case activity
- Does Wis. Stat. §973.042 (the child pornography surcharge statute) permit the circuit court to impose a child pornography surcharge for an offense that is “read in” for sentencing purposes?
- Is the child pornography surcharge a punishment that must be explained during a plea colloquy? If so, was Schmidt entitled to a hearing on his claim that the plea colloquy was deficient in this case?
Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 2019AP2073, petition for review granted 11/19/20; case activity
1. Did the circuit court lack competency to adjudicate this Chapter 51 commitment proceeding due to the county’s violation of the rule requiring it to file psychiatric reports 48 hours before the final hearing?
2. If the circuit court retained competency, did it err in admitting a tardy report and the testimony of the report’s author?
State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, certification granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from the certification):
Did police violate Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights by:
- exceeding the scope of Burch’s consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages;
- unlawfully retaining the entire cell phone download after it completed its initial investigation and closing the case without charging Burch; and
- unlawfully conducting a second search of the cell phone download months after closing the initial investigation.
State v. Jordan Alexander Lickes, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from the PfR):
Does the expungement statute’s requirement that a probationer have “satisfied the conditions of probation” also mean that the probationer must perfectly comply at all times with each and every rule of probation set by the probation agent?
When a circuit court chooses to hold a hearing and exercise discretion to determine whether a probationer who violated a rule set by his agent has nevertheless “satisfied the conditions of probation” so as to qualify for expungement, should the appellate court review the circuit court’s decision for an erroneous exercise of discretion?
When a circuit court makes factual findings concerning whether a probationer violated a condition of probation rendering him ineligible for expungement, must the appellate court uphold the finding in the absence of clear error?
State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, court of appeals certification granted 11-18-20, 2019AP1983; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the certification):
[W]hether the guilty-plea waiver rule applies when a defendant pleads not guilty to an offense, but stipulates to the inculpatory facts supporting each element of the offense, and explicitly agrees to a finding of guilt at a hearing before the circuit court at which no witness testifies.
Cheyne Monroe v. Chad Chase, 2019AP1918, certification granted 10/21/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issue for review (derived from the COA’s certification)
One of the elements of a claim for malicious prosecution is that the baseless prior action must have terminated in favor of the party asserting malicious prosecution. The issue is whether this element is met when the party accused of malicious prosecution voluntarily dismissed the allegedly baseless proceeding before it was decided on the merits.
Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, review of published opinion granted 10/21/20, case activity.
When the court orders a child in need of protection or services (“CHIPS”) placed outside the family home, a parent’s rights may be terminated if he or she fails to meet the conditions for the child’s return in the timeframe set out by statute. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). In April 2018, the legislature shortened this timeframe. Under either version, the CHIPS order placing the child outside the home must include “notice” of “any grounds for termination of parental rights[.]” Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and
Issues for Review:
Whether as a matter of statutory construction the new, shorter timeframe begins with the initial CHIPS order, even if it predates the change in the statute and thus does not include notice of the shorter timeframe.
Whether starting the shorter timeframe with a CHIPS order that predates the statutory change violates a parent’s due process rights.