by admin
on February 27, 2024
Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 26, 2024
State v. M.M., 2023AP2093-2100, 2/22/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Challenges to circuit court disposition orders are almost never successful. This case is no exception. M.M. (“Melissa”) argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that terminating her parental rights to her eight children was in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 23, 2024
Kenosha County DC&FS v. R.M.F., 2023AP2156-157, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the difficult standard for proving judicial bias, COA concludes that R.M.F. has failed to show that the court’s remarks to jurors are a basis for reversing this TPR.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 22, 2024
Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen & Kevin A. Carr, 2022AP1076, 2/22/24, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity
This case concerns Mitchell’s appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. We recognize the case is a bit outside of our normal coverage, but in addition to the fact that D4 has recommended this decision for publication, the case presents an interesting, if somewhat technical, application of law to a factual scenario that is likely of some interest to our readers. The bottom line is that the denial of Mitchell’s petition is affirmed, despite the fact that he indisputably filed proof that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, because he failed to file “all documents related to the administrative process.” Op., ¶33-34. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 22, 2024
Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2023AP1085, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another opinion which stresses the need for County-petitioners to take more care at extension hearings, COA reverses for failure to make an adequate record below.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 22, 2024
State v. Matthew Curtis Stills, 2022AP1390-CR, 2/13/24, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This 2016 case out of Milwaukee County has a bit of a backstory and an unfortunate ending for Sills. In 2020, the court of appeals reversed Sills’ conviction based on a Bangert violation related to the circuit court’s failure to advise Sills of the maximum fine. Thereafter, Sills went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, compared to the 15 years he received after his original plea. This time around, Sills raises two issues on appeal: (1) that trial court’s objective bias violated his right to a fair trial and (2) that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Unlike his first appeal, the court affirms rejects his claims and affirms his new conviction. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 21, 2024
State v. Nicholas Allen Paulson, 2022AP186, 2/21/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Paulson tries to establish that police did not have probable cause to arrest him despite, among other evidence, a PBT reading of .198, COA affirms.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 20, 2024
State v. David A. Schultz, 2022AP1622, 2/13/24, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Schultz’s technical challenge to this OWI conviction fails, as COA finds sufficient evidence that the bar parking lot in which Schultz operated his motor vehicle was covered by the OWI statute.
[continue reading…]
{ }
