On Point: 1. Appeals

J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.

State v. Kyle R. Appel, 2023AP2083-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying a standard of review exceptionally deferential to a jury’s decision to convict, COA distinguishes Appel’s proffered authority and affirms.

State v. L.Z., 2025AP2731-32, 2/17/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although L.Z. tries to capitalize on certain statements in the court’s oral ruling as giving a foothold for her appellate challenge, the standard of review means the argument attacking a discretionary decision goes nowhere.

State v. Tate H. Batson, 2025AP136-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Batson tries his best to poke holes in the judge’s discretionary decision, the deferential standard of review means those arguments uniformly fail.

Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, 2/10/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held in a decision recommended for publication that the deadline for counties to file the annual review of a person subject to protective placement is directory and failing to file timely does not deprive the circuit court of competency, while reminding parties that timely annual review remains statutorily and constitutionally required.

State v. Jacob T. Thornburg,  2023AP600, 1/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal following a bench trial for an alleged violation of the traffic code, COA rejects the pro se appellant’s arguments and affirms.

Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.

State v. A.B., Jr.,  2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.

State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.

State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman,  2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.