On Point: 1. Appeals

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.

State v. J.A.N., 2023AP1108, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Z.D.S., 2023AP1109, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. S.R., 2023AP1110, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a series of appeals seemingly aimed at the discretionary decisions of an individual circuit court judge, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision to dismiss and refer these juvenile prosecutions for a DPA under a well-settled standard of review.

State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.

State v. Paul R. Noble, 2023AP1444-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While Noble’s arguments on appeal appear to have substantial merit, the court of appeals declines to address the merits because the state abandoned the appeal and thereby conceded that “Noble’s arguments are correct.”

State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2022AP959-CR, 4/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24, reversed 6/27/25 case activity

In a must-read defense win, COA holds that the State’s “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s speedy trial rights entitle him to dismissal of the underlying complaint.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.M., 2023AP1643-45, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case demonstrating the difficult hurdles litigants must clear in order to prove deficient performance, COA affirms an underlying order terminating “Mary’s” parental rights.

Winnebago County Department of Human Services v. C.R.Q., II,, 2024AP81, 4/17/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-dependent TPR appeal, “Craig” attacks the circuit court’s discretionary ruling on multiple fronts but fails due to the imposing standard of review.

Brown County Health and Human Services v. R.U., 2024AP45-6 4/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another fact-dependent TPR appeal, COA affirms given well-settled (and difficult to overcome) legal standards.

Jackson County Department of Human Services v. I.J.R.,, 2023AP1495-6 4/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another beefy TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of I.J.R.’s arguments and affirms.

State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, 4/12/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24 case activity

After McAdory persuaded the court of appeals to reverse his OWI conviction and grant him a new trial, the state pulled the “old switcheroo” on McAdory by getting the circuit court to swap his previously dismissed restricted controlled substance conviction with the OWI conviction overturned by the court of appeals. Instead of a new OWI trial, McAdory was stuck with a new sentence on his previously dismissed RCS conviction. After rejecting McAdory’s challenges to the circuit court’s post-remittitur actions and his double jeopardy claims, the court of appeals affirms.