On Point

Latest from On Point

Racine County v. P.B., 2022AP765-FT, 11/30/22, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity
Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to  be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published decision, the court of appeals holds that these statutes protect the person’s right to be physically present. Attendance
Continue Reading Defense win! Subject has right to be physically present at guardianship and protective placement hearings

State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 11/23/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants shall not be issued except upon probable cause “supported by Oath or affirmation.” The officer who applied for a warrant to draw Moeser’s blood after an OWI arrest made no oral oath or affirmation before signing the affidavit in support of the warrant or before the judicial officer who approved the
Continue Reading SCOW: Oath or affirmation of officer on warrant is a matter of substance, not form

State v. Cartrell Romel Kimble, 2021AP1227-CR, Distirct 1, 11/29/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The prosecutor’s closing argument didn’t amount to “vouching” for the credibility of the pretrial statements of two recanting witnesses.
At Kimble’s trial for homicide and reckless endangering safety, two of the state’s witnesses who had previously told police they saw Kimble running from the scene of a shooting claimed they did not recall telling police that Kimble was one of the
Continue Reading Prosecutor didn’t vouch for recanting witnesses

L.E.H. v. R.E.M., 2022AP713-715, 11/22/11, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” and “Rebecca” had 3 children together. After their relationship ended, Rebecca struggled with addiction and was charged with a number of crimes. Luke married and successfully petitioned to terminate Rebecca’s parental rights.  Rebecca appealed the TPR arguing the circuit court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on the grounds that she abandoned her children, and (2) created the appearance of bias during the disposition
Continue Reading COA affirms summary judgment finding abandonment in TPR

State v. X.B.A.-S., 2022AP944-946, 11/29/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
When a circuit court finds a juvenile not competent to proceed in a delinquency proceeding but likely to regain, may it “counsel and close” the related JIPS cases per §938.34(1)? Or must it enter dispositional orders requiring periodic reexaminations of the juvenile per §938.30(5)(e)? Siding with the State, the court of appeals chose the latter option.
The State charged X.B.A.-S with crimes
Continue Reading COA holds no “counseling and closing” JIPS petition when juvenile is found incompetent to proceed

State v. C.L., 2022AP1580-1582, 11/22/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
C.L. argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in finding that the termination her parental rights to her 3 kids was in their best interests under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). The court of appeals was not persuaded by her arguments that the paternal grandparents should be guardians, not an adoptive resource, for the children and that the circuit court failed to consider
Continue Reading Best interests of the children supported TPR

Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2022AP1357-FT, 11/23/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.J. has schizophrenia. At his recommitment hearing, Dr. Monese testified that if treatment were withdrawn, he would become a proper subject of commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c. J.D.J. does not believe he has a mental illness, so he would stop treatment and become “violent.” Third-standard recommitments are increasingly common. This decision highlights the need for more vigorous defense strategies in these cases.
Monese based his
Continue Reading Recommitment based on 3rd standard of dangerousness upheld

State v. Roman C. Ozimek, 2021AP452, District 3, 11/22/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ozimek challenges the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI. The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court should have considered evidence that the officer misinformed Ozimek of his “constitutional right” to obtain his own chemical testing without having to first consent to the officer’s request for chemical
Continue Reading Extra information from officer about implied consent law didn’t make refusal proper

State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/16/22; case activity (including PFR, PFR response, and briefs)
Issue presented (from the defendant’s PFR)

Can a circuit court use its statutory authority to modify conditions of probation and extended supervision to regulate the day-to-day affairs of individuals on supervision, contrary to statutes conferring on the Department of Corrections the exclusive authority to administer probation?

As explained in On Point’s post on
Continue Reading SCOW will review circuit court’s attempt to act like a DOC supervision agent

Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2022AP817, District 2, 11/16/22 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Winnebago County successfully petitioned to recommit A.P.D. under the 5th standard of dangerousness. On appeal, he argued that the county offered insufficient evidence of mental illness and of dangerousness.  Although A.P.D. lost, he raised some good points that the court of appeals sidestepped or rejected.
Mental illness. The court of appeals rejected A.P.D.’s argument that the county failed to offer sufficient evidence of
Continue Reading An interesting 5th standard recommitment

Sauk County v. A.D.S., 2022AP550, 11/17/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court recommitted A.D.S. based on §51.20(1)(a)2.c, which seems to be the standard du jour for ch. 51 recommitments.  Even though A.D.S. hadn’t recently behaved dangerously, the court of appeals affirmed because recommitments may be based on past evidence of dangerousness, and credible evidence indicated that if not committed he would stop taking his medication and return to his former dangerous behavior.
Continue Reading Another 3rd standard recommitment affirmed

Portage County v. A.R.F., 2022AP1262, 11/17/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A.R.F. challenges the extension of her commitment under ch. 51. She argues the circuit court failed to adequately identify and support one of the statutory dangerousness standards, as is required by Langlade Cnty. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals disagrees.

The problem that bedeviled the D.J.W. court is not present in this
Continue Reading COA holds trial court made adequate findings under third ch. 51 standard

Portage County DH & HS v. S.Z. & C.Z., 2022AP1352-1355, 11/17/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case is the companion of C.Z. & S.Z., decided two weeks ago. C.Z. is the father of the four children at issue; S.Z., the appellant here, is the mother. The opinion here is pretty much a remix of the opinion in the earlier case; both parents raise similar issues and the court similarly rejects them.
Continue Reading COA again rejects challenges to TPR

On November 15th, the Milwaukee Mental Health Taskforce will present the Marie C. Perry Rising Leader Award to Attorney Katie Holtz, who heads up the mental health unit of the SPD’s Milwaukee trial office. The Taskforce press release describes just what a tour de force our colleague is!

Katie is a champion for the rights of people with mental illness and/or disabilities and gives strength to the consumer voice in the court system and community. During the pandemic, she
Continue Reading Katie Holtz: A leader in the Milwaukee mental health community!

State v. Jeffrey L. Blabaum, 2022AP111, 11/10/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Blabaum texted his ex and told her to meet him in Dodgeville to retrieve a few personal items she’d left behind when she moved out of the home they shared in Tennessee. He also sent a picture of one of the items, a bench, which appeared to be sitting in a trailer. His text specified that she should “Come alone.”
Continue Reading COA rejects slew of challenges to theft conviction