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…]
{ }
by admin
on October 22, 2022
State v. Terry L. Hibbard, 2022 WI App 53; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that allows for a sweeping expansion of aiding and abetting prosecutions in Len Bias cases, the court of appeals holds that a person assisting only a buyer a drug transaction could also be prosecuted for reckless homicide if the buyer dies from using the drug because any act aiding the buyer in getting the drugs also necessarily aids the seller in making the delivery. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2022
Juneau County D.H.S. v. R.M., 2022AP1260, 9/29/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, M.M. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 17, 2022
Sauk County v. W.B., 2021AP322, 9/9/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity
This decision should strike fear in the hearts of those who have executed a healthcare power of attorney or who hold an HPOA for a loved one. According to the court of appeals, when a court declares a person incapacitated and activates his HPOA, his agent may admit him to a nursing home. But the incapacitated person retains the power to revoke his HPOA and leave the nursing home. To prevent this result, a court must order a guardianship and protective placement for him. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 17, 2022
Clark County v. R.F., 2022AP481, District 4, 9/1/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Too bad this decision isn’t recommended for publication. The court of appeals reversed an order continuing a ch. 55 protective placement because the County failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of protective placement would provide the least restrictive environment consistent with R.F.’s needs. And because the County failed to respond to R.F.’s requested remedy, the court of appeals granted it. It remanded the case with directions to order the County to transition R.F. to protective services. [continue reading…]
{ }
