On Point: 1. Appeals

State of Wisconsin v. Gustin J. King, 2024AP2064-CRNM, 2/18/26, District II (recommended for publication) (per curiam); case activity

The COA, in the first published decision on the issue, holds that it does not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of conviction when one or more of the criminal counts is unresolved due to the existence of a deferred judgment agreement (DJA).

State of Wisconsin v. Mary E. Melstrom, 2023AP1176-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a restitution award to cover the victim insurance company’s costs of investigating the cause of a house fire that was the subject of the defendant’s criminal charge but reversed the award for the victim’s attorney fees.

J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.

State v. Kyle R. Appel, 2023AP2083-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying a standard of review exceptionally deferential to a jury’s decision to convict, COA distinguishes Appel’s proffered authority and affirms.

State v. L.Z., 2025AP2731-32, 2/17/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although L.Z. tries to capitalize on certain statements in the court’s oral ruling as giving a foothold for her appellate challenge, the standard of review means the argument attacking a discretionary decision goes nowhere.

State v. Tate H. Batson, 2025AP136-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Batson tries his best to poke holes in the judge’s discretionary decision, the deferential standard of review means those arguments uniformly fail.

Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, 2/10/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held in a decision recommended for publication that the deadline for counties to file the annual review of a person subject to protective placement is directory and failing to file timely does not deprive the circuit court of competency, while reminding parties that timely annual review remains statutorily and constitutionally required.

State v. Jacob T. Thornburg,  2023AP600, 1/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal following a bench trial for an alleged violation of the traffic code, COA rejects the pro se appellant’s arguments and affirms.

Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.

State v. A.B., Jr.,  2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.