On Point: K. Standards of Review

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.

State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.

Wood County v. J.A.B., 2025AP220, 8/21/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order for protective placement because the County did not establish that J.A.B. was so totally incapable of providing for her own care as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.

Fond du Lac County v. Andrew Joseph Ludwig, 2025AP183, 8/20/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ludwig appeals from a judgment convicting him of OWI 1st, and challenges the order denying his suppression motion. He contends that the sheriff deputies “unconstitutionally detain[ed him]” by failing to conduct the OWI investigation in a sufficiently diligent manner. COA disagrees and affirms.

State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.

Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.