On Point: K. Standards of Review

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.

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.

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State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity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State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman,  2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity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.

State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.

State v. Clinton J. Adams, 2025AP1179, 11/26/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms jury’s conviction for knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction over sufficiency challenge.