by admin
on February 16, 2023
R.G. v. S.P., 2022AP1876, District 4, 02/16/2023 (one judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.G. filed a petition to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to a non-marital child that he had not seen in over seven years. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G. pursued an appeal pro se, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 48.185 supported his petition in Dane County. However, § 48.185 is a venue provision and the circuit court’s personal jurisdiction is controlled by Wis. Stat. § 822.21(1), which provides that jurisdiction exists only if Wisconsin “is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding.” The court affirms based on the undisputed record that R.G.’s child lives in Illinois with the mother and R.G. presented no evidence that the child resided in Wisconsin within six months prior to the filing of R.G.’s petition. (Opinion, ¶4).
{ }
by admin
on February 14, 2023
State v. Amber C. Debree, 2022AP1311-CR, 02/08/23, District II (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Debree’s disorderly conduct conviction stemmed from a physical altercation she had with her husband immediately after Debree learned he had impregnated her adult daughter. The sentencing court placed Debree on probation for two years after it questioned whether Debree was “truly accepting responsibility for her actions” and expressed concern about her criminal record. In response to the concerns about her criminal record, Debree moved the court to modify her sentence based on her history of being abused by her husband, which provided additional context to her actions in this case and some explanation for her criminal record. Ultimately, the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of her new factor claim because Debree could not show that her claimed new factor was “unknowingly overlooked by all of the parties.” (Opinion, ¶8). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 13, 2023
State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, certification filed 2/8/23, certification granted, 3/24/23, remanded, 2023 WI 69;District 2; 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…]
{ }
by admin
on February 12, 2023
State v. Craig R. Thatcher, 2020AP1734, 2/7/23, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).
A state trooper stopped Thatcher for a suspected OWI, the trooper read the Informing the Accused Form, and, according to Thatcher, provided additional, misleading information that influenced his decision to consent to a breath test in violation of County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995). The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to suppress the results of the breath test and also the results of the subsequent blood. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 12, 2023
County of Dunn v. Kevin J. Cormican, 2020AP1895, 2/7/23, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After being convicted of OWI 1st, Cormican appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the results of his blood test. He first argued that the arresting officer gave him information beyond what is on the Informing the Accused (ITA) card that was misleading and affected his decision to consent to the test. He also argued that due to the misleading information, his consent to the blood test was involuntary. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 9, 2023
State v. Lynne M. Shirikian, 2023 WI App 13; case activity (including briefs)
Shirikian pleaded to OWI as a fifth offense. Back in 2019, the legislature amended the statutes to create a both a presumptive and a mandatory minimum sentence for OWI 5th and OWI 6th. See 2019 Wis. Act 106; Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)5. The presumptive minimum requires at least 18 months of initial confinement, but the statute lets a court go lower if it finds doing so in the best interest of the community and not harmful to the public. The court of appeals now holds that even if a court decides to give less than 18 months IC, it’s still obligated to impose a bifurcated sentence. Since bifurcated sentences necessarily involve at least a year of IC, see Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b), that year is the true mandatory minimum. Further, the court holds, a sentencing judge can’t avoid this minimum by imposing and staying a prison sentence and ordering of probation. Because the judge here did order probation, the court of appeals remands with directions that the lower court impose a legal sentence. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 9, 2023
Barron County v. K.L., 2022AP502, District 3, 02/07/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
K.L. (Katie) challenged the 2021 extension of her original 2013 Chapter 51 commitment on two grounds: (1) insufficient evidence of dangerousness and (2) the circuit court’s failure to “make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI App 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court affirms Katie’s recommitment after concluding the county presented “clear and convincing evidence” that Katie was dangerous under the fourth standard (see Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.d.), and that the circuit court complied with D.J.W. when it “checked two boxes on its written order,” which indicated that Katie was dangerous under the third and fourth standards. (Opinion, ¶¶2, 12). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 6, 2023
State v. Larry L. Jackson, 2023 WI 3, 01/20/23, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
A unanimous supreme court holds that Jackson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under State v. Machner on one of his three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. [continue reading…]
{ }
