On Point
View all >COA: Collateral attack on prior OWI must allege defendant did not know potential penalties even if plea colloquy was defective; affiant requesting warrant for blood draw need not have witnessed arrest.
State of Wisconsin v. Jonathon L. Sundermeyer, 2024AP2007-CR, 3/3/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA concludes a defective plea colloquy was not sufficient to collaterally attack the defendant’s prior OWI conviction where the defendant did not establish he was unaware of the potential penalties for his prior conviction. The COA also determined an officer’s affidavit in support of a blood draw complies with the constitutional requirement for an an affidavit to be supported by oath or affirmation where the officer was not present when the defendant was arrested for operating while intoxicated (OWI) but relied on information from an officer who was present.
COA rejects challenges to TPR dispositional order and affirms
Jefferson County DHS v. G.J.J., 2025AP2491, 3/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
While G.J.J. gets closer than most–and his arguments even give COA “pause”–ultimately, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.
Defense win: COA reverses guardianship med order
Grant County Dept of Social Services v. D.G.N., 2025AP2382, 2/27/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In this appeal limited to the validity of an order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in a guardianship case, COA holds that the county failed to meet two of the Wis. Stat. § 55.14(3) requirements.
SCOW reverses COA in 971.14 med order appeal, decides standard of review for Sell factors, limits Green’s applicability, and declines to resolve several issues
State v. J.D.B., 2026 WI , 2/25/26, reversing a published court of appeals opinion; case activity
SCOW reverses the COA, holding , clarifies the standard of review for each of the Sell factors, holds that Green is overruled to the extent that it “require[d] each and every piece of information it lists” and declines to decide several issues.