≡ Menu

State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; case activity (briefs not available)

We don’t know the precise issue or issues presented, but the court of appeals’ decision suggests the state supreme court may be looking to un-fracture the fractured decision it rendered last term in State v. A.G. There, the circuit court had told a parent pleading to grounds in his TPR trial’s first phase that the state would have the burden in the second phase: that is, the state would have to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interest. Of the six justices who decided the case, four agreed there is no “burden”; rather the best-interest inquiry is the “polestar” (your guess is as good as ours on what sort of legal standard that encompasses). But these four could not agree on why the judge’s communication of this concededly incorrect standard didn’t mandate reversal; see our post for more on this. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

SCOW to review yet another knotty 51 appeal

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; case activity (including briefs)

Showing that SCOW’s interest in 51 appeals remains unabated, SCOW has accepted review of a big case that could result in the overturning of relatively recent precedent.

[continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24, case activity (including briefs)

SCOW accepts a case poised to resolve ongoing conflict in COA with respect to involuntary medication orders in Chapter 51 appeals.

[continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael Gene Wiskowski, 2021AP2105, review of a per curiam court of appeals decision granted 9/26/23; case activity (including briefs, PFR and response)

Issues presented (from the PFR):

When the report of a person sleeping in a car while waiting in line at a drive thru is contradicted by the officer’s observation of the car driving on the road without any traffic violations, is there reasonable suspicion to stop the car or can police justify the stop based on the community caretaker doctrine?

After the stop, when the driver provides a reasonable explanation, can the officer use the community caretaker doctrine to extend the stop to perform field sobriety tests? [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. R.A.M., 2023AP441, 6/6/23, District 1 (unpublished one-judge decision), GAL’s PFR granted, 9/26/23, case activity

As we previously explained, in a 1-judge decision, the court of appeals reversed an order terminating R.A.M.’s parental rights because the circuit court proceeded to disposition in violation of  § 48.23(2)(b)3.’s rule that 2 days must elaspe between a circuit court’s default judgment finding and disposition. And since the court proceded immediately to disposition, the court (1) violated R.A.M.’s due process rights and (2) lost competency to proceed to disposition. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Donte Quintell McBride, 2021AP311-CR, state’s petition to review an unpublished court of appeals decision granted, 4/18/23; affirmed, 2023 WI 68 case activity (including briefs, PFR, and response to PFR)

Issues (from the State’s PFR):

1. When reviewing a motion to suppress, what is the proper application of the “clearly erroneous” standard of review?

2. Was the seizure and subsequent search of McBride constitutional where police observed two people sitting in an unilluminated SUV, which appeared to obstruct traffic, late at night in a high crime area, and when McBride made furtive movements in response to the officer’s spotlight? [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County and Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2022AP1999-W, PFR granted 03/31/2023;  COA decision affirmed, 2024 WI 14, case activity (including briefs, petition for review, and state’s response)

Davis was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors in Dane County. He applied for an attorney through the State Public Defender a day after his arrest, but made his initial appearance before a court commissioner without appointed trial counsel. That same day, Davis’ case was assigned to Judge Ellen K. Berz. Counsel was appointed to represent Davis 65 days later, and after consultation with his newly appointed counsel, Davis filed a request for substitution. Judge Berz denied the request as “untimely.” The supreme court will now review whether the delayed appointment of counsel provides an exception to the strict adherence to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4)’s deadline to file a request for substitution. [continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }

State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, certification granted 3/24/23;  remanded, 2023 WI 69;District 2; case activity (including briefs) case activity (including briefs)

Question presented (from the court of appeals’ certification):

In light of the 2014 amendment of WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2)(b) (2019-20), codifying and expanding the “greater latitude” rule and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsey, 2018 WI 10, ¶¶23-25, 379 Wis. 2d 386, 906 N.W.2d 158, interpreting and applying that amendment, are State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982), and State v. Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214, still controlling law as they relate to the admissibility of prior nonconsensual sexual wrongs in cases involving an adult victim of an alleged sexual assault where consent is the primary issue?

[continue reading…]

{ 0 comments }
RSS