Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

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orders a ch. 51 recommitment, it must specify which standard of dangerousness the patient will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn.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. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

COA dismisses TPR appeal as moot

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 participation in the plan review hearing. The court of appeals gives no specifics. Instead, it holds that because the permanency plans are no longer in effect, the appeal is moot. K.H. did not develop an argument for why the issue would recur and evade review. And she didn’t argue that the issue was of great public importance, until her reply brief.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

April 2022 publication order

On April 28, 2022, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, 4/26/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hoyle chose to remain silent at his trial for child sexual assault. During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly argued that the testimony from “Hannah” (the complaining witness) was “uncontroverted” and told the jury it had “heard no evidence” and that there was “absolutely no evidence” disputing her account of the alleged sexual assault. Under the circumstances of this case, the court of appeals holds that the prosecutor’s arguments violated Hoyle’s Fifth Amendment rights. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. A.P., 2022AP95-97, 4/26/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity

Seems like we went years without a defense win in a TPR appeal. Then–just like that–we get 4 citable defense wins in 9 months. See also this win, this win, and this win! At the disposition stage in A.P.’s case, the circuit court was supposed to consider the 6 “best interests of the children” factors, but it only considered 5. The testimony on the missing factor was conflicting. Thus, the court of appeals reversed this TPR and remanded for further proceedings. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }