On Point: 1. Appeals

Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen & Kevin A. Carr, 2022AP1076, 2/22/24, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

This case concerns Mitchell’s appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. We recognize the case is a bit outside of our normal coverage, but in addition to the fact that D4 has recommended this decision for publication, the case presents an interesting, if somewhat technical, application of law to a factual scenario that is likely of some interest to our readers. The bottom line is that the denial of Mitchell’s petition is affirmed, despite the fact that he indisputably filed proof that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, because he failed to file “all documents related to the administrative process.” Op., ¶33-34.

State v. Matthew Curtis Stills, 2022AP1390-CR, 2/13/24, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This 2016 case out of Milwaukee County has a bit of a backstory and an unfortunate ending for Sills. In 2020, the court of appeals reversed Sills’ conviction based on a Bangert violation related to the circuit court’s failure to advise Sills of the maximum fine. Thereafter, Sills went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, compared to the 15 years he received after his original plea. This time around, Sills raises two issues on appeal: (1) that trial court’s objective bias violated his right to a fair trial and (2) that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Unlike his first appeal, the court affirms rejects his claims and affirms his new conviction.

State v. Nicholas Allen Paulson, 2022AP186, 2/21/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Paulson tries to establish that police did not have probable cause to arrest him despite, among other evidence, a PBT reading of .198, COA affirms.

State v. David A. Schultz, 2022AP1622, 2/13/24, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

Schultz’s technical challenge to this OWI conviction fails, as COA finds sufficient evidence that the bar parking lot in which Schultz operated his motor vehicle was covered by the OWI statute.

Deshawn Harold Jewell v. Gary Boughton, No. 22-3082, 1/22/24

Despite an obvious constitutional violation, Jewell is still precluded from obtaining a new trial given that Wisconsin courts did not unreasonably find the error harmless.

City of Watertown v. Andrew D. Wiest, 2023AP992, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Wiest faults the City for failing to prove that he operated his motor vehicle while intoxicated, COA is satisfied there was sufficient circumstantial proof and affirms.

Columbia County DH&HS v. S.A.J., 2023AP1884, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a lengthy opinion notable for its treatise-like treatment of the issues, COA rejects S.A.J.’s challenges to her TPR order.

State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross. 

State v. M.D.B., Jr., 2023AP620, 2/6/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The State’s efforts to revive this delinquency case on appeal fail, as they are unable to persuade COA that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to comply with a statutory deadline.

State v. Kevin A. Terry, 2023AP1053-CR, 1/31/24, District II (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In yet another “broken taillight” OWI, COA holds that the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Terry based on a relatively minor vehicle malfunction.