On Point: K. Standards of Review

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State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity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State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman,  2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity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

State v. Richard T. Weske, 2025AP154-CR, 11/5/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Weske appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the investigatory traffic stop constituted an unreasonable seizure because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and was therefore without authority to conduct the stop. COA affirms, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop for a suspected OWI, and Weske conceded that the officer had the authority to do so outside his jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 349.03(4).

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

State v. Scott R. Shallcross, 2023AP362, 10/7/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appear arises from Shallcross’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas based on newly discovered evidence. Shallcross, pro se, argues on appeal that the state committed a Brady violation, and the circuit court should have analyzed his motion as a Brady claim. The state argues that Shallcross is judicially estopped from arguing that he was not responsibible because he admitted as much by pleading guilty, and that the new evidence is not exculpatory under Brady. COA holds that Shallcross is not judicially estopped from raising his plea withdrawal claim based on newly discovered evidence, but agrees with the state that the claim fails under Brady and the newly discovered evidence test.

State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.