On Point blog, page 1 of 25
Defense win: COA holds revocation of NGI acquittee’s conditional release for rule violations under § 971.17(3)(e) is unconstitutional
State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.
Defense win: In published decision, COA holds that jurors must agree on period of abandonment in TPR
S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.
Defense Win! COA reverses protective placement order on sufficiency and hearsay challenges
Brown County v. K.B., 2024AP1843, District III, 9/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA agrees with “Kathy” that the county failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that she is in continuing need of protective placement, and reverses the ch. 55 order.
COA: Defendant forfeits argument for discovery violation because no objection made at trial
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.
SCOW affirms circuit court’s authority to reinstate previously dismissed conviction under 346.63(1)
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.
COA: Sufficient evidence to request blood draw independent from defendant’s compelled statements; defendant’s IAC claims were conclusory and undeveloped.
State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw. The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial were conclusory and undeveloped.
COA upholds statute prohibiting possession of a firearm while intoxicated despite State’s failure to adequately litigate matter in circuit court
State v. Bernabe Gonzalez, 2024AP358-CR, 5/6/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In what we believe is COA’s first foray into the vexing world of firearm regulation post-Bruen and Rahimi, COA holds that Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting intoxicated persons from “going armed” passes muster under an originalist legal analysis.
COA affirms juvenile waiver decision despite judge’s mistaken belief about SJO program
State v. J.A.V., 2024AP2081, 4/23/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects two claims relating to the circuit court’s discretionary decision, including an argument that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information regarding the SJO program.
COA affirms denial of suppression in OWI, concludes police had probable cause to arrest
City of Delafield v. Shawn M. Office, 2024AP227, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms Office’s OWI 1st conviction, concluding that his arrest was supported by probable cause because sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
COA affirms OWI 1st conviction despite hand sanitizer contamination defense
County of Waukesha v. Jacob A. Vecitis, 2023AP919, 2/12/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Vecitis appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of OWI 1st, and an order denying reconsideration. COA concludes the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and affirms.