On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Daecorion J. Robinson, 2022AP2087-CR, 5/28/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare “causal nexus” win, 2 judges in D1 agree that the circuit court’s order was infirm. Under the text of the restitution statute, Robinson’s aiding a felon does not make him liable for the consequences of that felon’s underlying criminal conduct.

State v. Kelsy R. Wooldridge, 2022AP1927-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity

In a decision not recommended for publication, the COA reversed Kelsy Wooldridge’s conviction for possessing methamphetamine and found that no reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew a bloody syringe seized from her purse contained an unmeasurable amount of the drug.

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.

State v. Colin R. Dowling, 2024AP524, 5/1/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found sufficient evidence to sustain Colin Dowling’s civil forfeiture obligation for impeding traffic by driving at a slow speed.  Although Dowling argued that there were no reasonable alternatives to slowing down his Tesla to preserve its battery, the COA concluded contacting roadside assistance was a safer alternative than driving 45 miles per hour on an interstate highway where the speed limit was 70.

State v. Kimberly D. Rowe, 2022AP2122-CR, 4/22/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA considered when a collection of liquor bottles behind the counter of what appeared to be a bar becomes “intoxicating liquor” for which a license is required to possess for intended sales.  Because the State did not prove the identity of the liquid in the bottles or submit the liquid for chemical testing, the COA reversed Kimberly Rowe’s conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor with intent to sell without a license or permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 125.66(1).

State v. J.A.V.,  2024AP2081, 4/23/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects two claims relating to the circuit court’s discretionary decision, including an argument that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information regarding the SJO program.

State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.

State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.

State v. Anthony J. LaRose, 2022AP647-CR, District 3, 3/25/25 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

LaRose appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing on his conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, in which he claimed that the circuit court judge was biased against him based on three sets of facts. COA rejects all of LaRose’s arguments and affirms, holding that the court’s comments were related to appropriate sentencing factors and LaRose failed to establish sufficient risk of actual bias.

State v. Justin Dennis Krizan, 2022AP1341-CR, 3/4/25, District III  (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity

Applying its recent holding in State v. Gore, 2025 WI App 11, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (see our post on Gore here), the COA concludes that Krizan’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent.