On Point: K. Standards of Review

State v. Conor Alexander Noble, 2025AP811-CR, 3/11/26, District II (1 judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects Noble’s facial unconstitutionality challenge to Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law (ICL) and affirms the circuit court’s denial of Noble’s motion to suppress the blood draw results for lack of voluntary consent.

Jefferson County DHS v. G.J.J., 2025AP2491, 3/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

While G.J.J. gets closer than most–and his arguments even give COA “pause”–ultimately, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.

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State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity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