by admin
on October 26, 2022
State v. D.W. Jr., 2022AP1397, 10/18/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
D.W. Jr. has along criminal history. He was incarcerated when his son, J.W., was born, and the two had never lived together. In fact, J.W. and his brother lived with a foster parent, who was also an adoptive resource for both of them. When the circuit court terminated D.W.’ Jr.’s parental rights, he argued that the court neglected to consider a dispositional alternative– the appointment of a guardian for J.W. It didn’t fly. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 26, 2022
State v. A.A.L., 2022AP1074, 10/11/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A parent’s failure to meet the conditions for the return of her child due to her incarceration is not a constitutional basis for finding her an unfit parent during the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding. Kenosha County DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845. “Alexis” argued that the circuit court violated this rule when it found grounds to terminate her rights to “Tom” based on continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. The court of appeals disagreed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2022
State v. Kevin J. McDowell, 2022AP164-CR, District 4, 9/22/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The decision in this interlocutory appeal addresses the procedure for assessing whether out-of-court statements the state proposes to admit at a criminal trial are “testimonial” and therefore inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. It also rejects the state’s claim that a deceased witness’s statements to police are nontestimonial because they were made to address an ongoing emergency. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2022
State v. Caroline J. Arndt, 2022AP450-CR, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Arndt pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, but the circuit court’s plea colloquy was defective in two crucial ways, so on the merits—and because the state declined to file a brief in the court of appeals—she’s entitled to withdraw her plea. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2022
State v. B.S.S., 2021AP2174, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.S.S. was adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault. She anticipated filing a motion to stay the sex offender registration requirement, see § 938.34(15m)(c) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, so she asked the court to provide funding for a defense expert to do a psychosexual evaluation to support the motion and to adjourn the dispositional hearing to get the evaluation done. In the course of denying her motions, the court made comments about the relevant legal standard for staying the requirement. (¶¶3-10). B.S.S. argues the court’s statements show the court had prejudged, and thus was biased against, her request for a stay. The court of appeals rejects her claim.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2022
State v. Michael J. Viezbicke, 2021AP2172, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Viezbicke filed a postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging his convictions in a 2017 misdemeanor case. The court of appeals holds the motion was barred because he is no longer in custody under the sentence imposed in that case. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2022
State v. Jay G. Jacomet, 2021AP2186-CR, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the totality of the circumstances, the police had a reasonable basis to suspect Jacomet was operating while intoxicated, so detaining him for field sobriety testing was lawful. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 22, 2022
State v. Annika S. Christensen, 2022AP500, 9/9/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Christensen was one of two occupants of a parked car after dark. A police truck approached, parked close behind her, and shined its takedown light into the car. At least one officer got out of the car and knocked on the window. In a carefully-reasoned, well-explained decision, the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s holding that Christensen was seized at this moment, and that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for that seizure. [continue reading…]
{ }
