On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Rebecca Lea Kamm, 2024AP1944-CR, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA held that the defendant forfeited her argument that the State did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) by not disclosing to her counsel video evidence within a reasonable time before trial.  Although the evidence was not provided to counsel until the morning of trial, the issue was forfeited because counsel did not object to its admission.

Wood County v. J.A.B., 2025AP220, 8/21/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order for protective placement because the County did not establish that J.A.B. was so totally incapable of providing for her own care as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.

Fond du Lac County v. Andrew Joseph Ludwig, 2025AP183, 8/20/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ludwig appeals from a judgment convicting him of OWI 1st, and challenges the order denying his suppression motion. He contends that the sheriff deputies “unconstitutionally detain[ed him]” by failing to conduct the OWI investigation in a sufficiently diligent manner. COA disagrees and affirms.

State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.

Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.

County of Milwaukee v. Sharon A. Dawson, 2024AP584, 7/22/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Dawson challenges the actions of the Milwaukee Police in enforcing the traffic code as racial profiling, her her pro se arguments are too poorly pleaded for the Court to address them.

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2025 WI 28, 6/27/25, reversing a published decision from COA; case activity

When this case was issued in COA, we got excited and informed our readers that this “big defense win” was an important decision on the speedy trial right. However, SCOW now unanimously reverses in favor of the State.

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.