On Point blog, page 1 of 24
COA holds that circuit court did not erroneously exercise discretion in refusing to reopen forfeiture case
Village of Whitefish Bay v. Ross Bolingbroke, 2025AP2547-52, 10/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the court’s ruling that Bolingbroke’s audio-only Zoom appearance merited a default judgment and determines that medical evidence provided by Bolingbroke did not justify reopening the matter after a second missed court date.
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.
COA finds officer’s reference to an “automatic” revocation did not render consent to blood draw involuntary
City of Mequon v. Scott Sarver Lindvall, 2025AP1703, 5/13/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Lindvall seizes on the officer’s word choice in discussing the consequences of refusing to consent to an evidentiary blood draw, the Court ultimately finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.
COA concludes consent to blood draw was free and voluntary despite defendant’s aversion to needles.
Winnebago County v. Michael Jon Potratz, 2025AP1059, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood draw based on the factors established by SCOW in Artic .
Defense Win: In TPR rife with error, COA holds that court erroneously granted default judgment and clarifies ICWA voluntary termination procedure
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Z.N., 2025AP1817, 11/7/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unpublished but citable case, COA clarifies there is no requirement that respondent appear in person for a voluntary termination of parental rights in an ICWA case and reverses the circuit court’s default finding.
Defense Win: COA clarifies defense of others doctrine and holds erroneous instructions merit new trial
State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.
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.
COA rejects undeveloped challenges to speeding citation and affirms
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.
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 affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.