On Point blog, page 2 of 24
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 rejects challenges to extension and medication orders and affirms another Chapter 51
Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.
COA once again holds that a colloquy is not required before a person stipulates to a mental commitment order
Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25; affirmed 5/19/26 case activity
In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.
Defense Win! COA remands for new CHIPS trial
State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.
Defense Win! Evidence insufficient to continue ch. 55 protective placement orders
Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).
COA rejects challenges to continued protective placement and affirms
Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.
COA rejects challenges to refusal finding; holds that refusal statute is not unconstitutional
State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.
In published decision, COA holds that CR-215 procedure triggers attachment of right to counsel but denies relief given that law was “unsettled”
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, 8/6/24, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
In a published decision that criminal practitioners have been waiting on for years, COA holds that a CR-215 probable cause procedure used to satisfy the requirements of Riverside triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Speeding motorist’s attempt to undo conviction in COA fails under governing standard of review
Winnebago County v. Thomas J. Roberts, 2023AP1808, District II, 6/12/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of a conviction for speeding, COA easily dispatches Roberts’s arguments given the deferential standard of review for findings of fact.
COA affirms denial of suppression motion, but reminds state of basic briefing rules
State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.