by admin
on November 9, 2022
Marathon County v. T.J.M., 2022AP623, 11/8/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Trevor” appealed an order recommitting him for 12 months because (1) the circuit court orally failed to indicate a standard of dangeorusness per Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient under either the 1st or 3rd standards. He prevailed on the latter argument. The opinion is helpful to lawyers defending clients against recommitment under these standards. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2022
State v. Donald L. White, 2020AP275-CR, 11/3/2022, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
We hope SCOW reviews this decision. An examiner opined that White was competent to proceed under §971.14 but refused to give her opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty. In fact, she thought White should be observed longer. The trial court excluded the examiner’s report and found White competent without it. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 7, 2022
State v. James Timothy Genous, 2019AP435-CR, 11/1/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2020 the court of appeals held that police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to stop Genous to investigate whether he was selling drugs. The supreme court reversed and sent the case back to the court of appeals to address the lawfulness of the searches of Genous’s shoes and socks and his car. Over a dissent, the court of appeals holds they were. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 7, 2022
State v. K.J.P., 2022AP807, District 2, 11/2/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects K.J.P.’s arguments that the circuit court erred in deciding to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and allow him to be prosecuted in adult court. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 3, 2022
State v. Mark J. Gahart, 2022 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds that driving while intoxicated with a minor passenger is not a victimless crime: the minor passenger is a victim for purposes of the restitution statute. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 3, 2022
State v. M.N., Jr., 2022AP855, District 1, 11/1/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court decided to waive M.N. (“Max”) into adult court based in part on the belief that any juvenile court supervision and services would end when M.N. turned 18 in 6 months. (¶8). But as the state concedes, juvenile court dispositions can extend beyond the juvenile’s 18th birthday. (¶16). The court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s erroneous belief was harmless. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 3, 2022
State v. Etter L. Hughes, 2021AP1834-CR, District 1, 11/1/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Hughes’s claim that she should be allowed to withdraw her pleas to four counts of child abuse on the grounds that the state improperly amended the information to add more charges against her because there was no independent factual basis for those charges and because two of the counts were multiplicitous under § 948.03(5)(c).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 31, 2022
State v. Suzanne Lee Shegonee, 2022AP361-CR, District 4, 10/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a guest post by Katie York, head of the SPD’s Appellate Division.
The circuit court sanctioned Shegonee $500 for accepting a new plea offer 3 days prior to her scheduled jury trial. The state made the offer after the court-imposed deadline for resolving the case. The court of appeals recognized the circuit court’s understandable concern about time pressures, number of cases, and the need for circuit courts to keep cases moving in a timely manner. However, it concluded the sanction imposed on Shegonee was “just outside the bounds of any authority for such a sanction” (¶¶1, 18) and thus reversed the sanction order. [continue reading…]
{ }
