On Point blog, page 1 of 52
COA upholds default order despite some “questionable” aspects of case, finds court properly exercised discretion at dispo
State v. S.B.T., 2026AP1890, 11/4/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although S.B.T. presents a number of mitigating facts to excuse her nonappearance, COA holds the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and rejects her challenges to the disposition.
COA concludes that circuit court properly exercised discretion in imposing maximum term of NGI commitment and declines to impose additional requirements
State v. Gavin J. Balke, 2024AP579-CR, 10/13/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
COA rejects Balke’s challenge to the length of his not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (“NGI”) commitment, concluding that the record “amply supports the circuit court’s discretionary decision” to order the maximum commitment period possible and declines to apply sentencing law in the context of an NGI commitment.
COA rejects multiple challenges to TPR and affirms
Rock County Human Services Department v. T.S., 2026AP1628-29, 10/15/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although T.S. presents a medley of interesting legal challenges, COA beats backs those arguments and affirms.
COA holds that circuit court did not erroneously exercise discretion in refusing to reopen forfeiture case
Village of Whitefish Bay v. Ross Bolingbroke, 2025AP2547-52, 10/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the court’s ruling that Bolingbroke’s audio-only Zoom appearance merited a default judgment and determines that medical evidence provided by Bolingbroke did not justify reopening the matter after a second missed court date.
Defense win: State may not refile charges that circuit court previously erroneously dismissed with prejudice
State v. Terry Lee Anderson, 2025AP1435, 9/17/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Anderson appeals the judgment convicting him of three counts that the circuit court had, in a previous case, dismissed with prejudice. COA agrees that the circuit court lacked the authority to disregard its prior dismissal order as void, and remands with instructions that the court vacate the counts that were previously dismissed with prejudice.
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.
COA certifies sentencing challenge with potentially broad-sweeping impact
State v. Nicholas B. Selerski., 2024AP1846-CR, 6/25/26, District IV (certification opinion); denied 10/14/25; case activity
In a case that might make many appellate attorneys justifiably nervous, COA asks whether we’ve all been getting sentencing law wrong for decades.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
COA affirms traffic judgment over pro se sufficiency challenges
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams, 2025AP2110, 6/16/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Kent Austin Williams, pro se, challenges the circuit court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding on the basis that Milwaukee County did not present sufficient evidence to support the violation. COA disagrees and affirms.
SCOTUS denies cert. while Justice Sotomayor encourages Court in a future case to correct lower courts’ improper standard for assessing prejudice for IAC claims based on Batson.
Clark v. Mississippi, USSC No. 25-6846, 6/8/2026, denying petition for certiorari; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS denied Tony Terrell Clark’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision affirming his conviction at a capital trial. Clark argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection because his trial lawyer did not adequately raise a Batson challenge when the State struck black jurors at a rate five times more than white jurors. Justice Sotomayor joined the Court’s decision to deny certiorari because Clark did not argue his counsel’s performance was deficient, but explained in an accompanying statement why the Court needs to address the conflict among state and federal courts regarding the standard to evaluate prejudice for a Batson claim.