On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Defense win: COA reverses parts of juvenile restitution order
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.
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.
The concurring opinion, written by Justice Ziegler and joined by Justice Bradley, would have overruled SCOW and COA precedents establishing that the circuit court must dismiss all but one of the convictions when a defendant is tried and found guilty of multiple offenses under § 346.63(1) that arise out of the same incident or occurrence.
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.