by admin
on September 19, 2023
State v. R.T., 2023AP1095 & 2023AP1096, District I, 9/12/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
R.T. (“Richard”) pled no contest to grounds but disputed whether his parental rights should be terminated at disposition. Specifically, Richard argued that “there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated.” The court of appeals disagrees, noting “there was ample support in the record for the court’s decision.” (Op., ¶15). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 18, 2023
State v. John R. Brott, 2021AP2001, 8/30/23, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2016, the court of appeals held that a sentencing court must give effect to the mandatory minimum for possession of child pornography: a bifurcated sentence including three years of initial confinement. The statute’s language, the court said, precludes imposing and staying a prison sentence in favor of probation, or imposing less than three years of IC, unless an age-based statutory exception (where the defendant is no more than four years older than the child depicted) applies. State v. Holcomb, 2016 WI App 70, 371 Wis.2d 647, 886 N.W.2d 100. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2023
David Patton v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County, 2023AP809-FT & 2023AP810-FT, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In an appeal displaying the extreme deference accorded to the circuit court’s contempt finding, COA defers to the circuit court’s decision to order a $100 contempt sanction against a lawyer in a CHIPS matter.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2023
City of Whitewater v. Douglas E. Kosch, 2022AP800, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
Although Kosch throws the kitchen sink at his OWI and refusal convictions, COA methodically works through his myriad challenges on a path toward affirmance.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2023
Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements to a crisis worker and a police officer, the county failed to call either direct witness to Zeb’s statements and instead relied on two witnesses who read about Zeb’s history. While the circuit court relied on a case manager’s testimony because “this is what case managers are supposed to do” and “to me, that’s an exception to any of the hearsay rules,” the court of appeals disagrees. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 13, 2023
State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 11, 2023
State v. Jeffrey S. Clemons, 2020AP1450-CR, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
Applying an almost-insurmountable standard of review, COA concludes there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that Clemons violated an obstructing ordinance.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 8, 2023
Brown County D.H.S. v. A.K., 2023AP730, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
A.K. concedes that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion at this dispositional hearing, but argues that the order must still be reversed as there was no direct evidence from the proposed adoptive resource. COA rejects that argument and affirms.
[continue reading…]
{ }
