On Point blog, page 1 of 122
COA affirms convictions for municipal ordinance violations because appellant did not obtain adequate record for appeal.
County of Monroe v. Nicholas H. Withey, 2025AP1802, 10/1/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the defendant-appellant’s convictions for disorderly conduct and resisting officer because the record was not sufficiently developed to review any issues on their merits.
Appellant forfeited right to challenge circuit court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with tribal court over guardianship proceeding because objection to jurisdiction not raised in circuit court.
Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2025AP2239, 9/24/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the appellant forfeited his right to appeal the circuit court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with the Ho-Chunk Nation tribal court on Monroe County’s guardianship petition because he did not raise his arguments in the circuit court.
Defense win: State may not refile charges that circuit court previously erroneously dismissed with prejudice
State v. Terry Lee Anderson, 2025AP1435, 9/17/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Anderson appeals the judgment convicting him of three counts that the circuit court had, in a previous case, dismissed with prejudice. COA agrees that the circuit court lacked the authority to disregard its prior dismissal order as void, and remands with instructions that the court vacate the counts that were previously dismissed with prejudice.
COA certifies two more THC/hemp issues to SCOW.
State v. Kevin Jones, 2025AP1539-CR, 9/8/26, District IV; case activity (including briefs)
On the heels of its certification last month in Bethke (see our post here) asking SCOW to determine whether Wisconsin’s legalization of hemp requires the State to prove as an element of the offense of possessing tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) that a substance contains greater than 0.3 percent of THC, the COA certified two additional issues for SCOW.
COA asks SCOW to clarify what must be proven in THC cases
State v. Aaron AJ Bethke, 2025AP1383-CR, 8/4/26, District III; case activity (including briefs)
In a rare case where the State believes the pattern jury instructions get it wrong, COA asks SCOW to settle an important burden of proof issue for marijuana prosecutions.
COA: Circuit court does not lose competency in TPR proceeding when it fails to comply with statutory requirement to hear testimony to support grounds for termination before accepting plea.
Barron County v. K.L.P., 2026AP460 & 2026AP461, 7/21/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the circuit court did not lose competency to enter disposition orders in an action to terminate parental rights if it accepts a no-contest plea to the grounds for termination without hearing testimony, even if Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) requires testimony.
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.
COA certifies sentencing challenge with potentially broad-sweeping impact
State v. Nicholas B. Selerski., 2024AP1846-CR, 6/25/26, District IV (certification opinion); case activity
In a case that might make many appellate attorneys justifiably nervous, COA asks whether we’ve all been getting sentencing law wrong for decades.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
SCOTUS: Appeal waiver unenforceable if it results in miscarriage of justice
Hunter v. United States, USSC No. 24-1063, 6/18/2026, reversing a decision of the 5th Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS holds that a defendant’s agreement with the government not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable if it would result in a miscarriage of justice that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.