On Point blog, page 1 of 7
COA holds that trial court did not err in finding that defendant could be restored to competency
State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.
SCOW relies on deferential standard of review to reject allegation that Zoom procedure violated defendant’s due process rights
State v. Kordell Grady, 2025 WI 22, 6/13/25, affirming COA’s summary disposition order; case activity
Although SCOW presumably took this case to clarify the rules of Zoom court–and the oral argument focused intensely on such questions–SCOW ultimately opts to issue a decision which makes no substantive law and denies relief based on what it claims is a deferential review of the circuit court’s factual findings.
COA holds prior recantation of allegation made by alleged victim against same defendant inadmissible for impeachment
State v. Johnny Ray Martin, 2023AP603, 5/28/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Martin’s claims that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying his attempt to impeach the alleged victim with her prior recantation of a separate incident, and that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate the recantation, prepare to address the recantation at trial, and argue the issue under the correct legal theory.
COA holds that warrantless entry to home, authorized by young child, did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
State v. Peter J. Long, 2024AP1249-CR, 5/28/25, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity
While Long’s appeal presents some superficially interesting legal issues, ultimately COA’s dereference to the circuit court’s underlying factual findings govern the outcome here.
COA affirms juvenile waiver decision despite judge’s mistaken belief about SJO program
State v. J.A.V., 2024AP2081, 4/23/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects two claims relating to the circuit court’s discretionary decision, including an argument that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information regarding the SJO program.
COA affirms default finding in TPR due to single missed court date
State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.
COA affirms suppression ruling based on illegible license plate
State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.
COA rejects sufficiency challenge to grounds and finds that court did not err in terminating parental rights
State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.
COA holds that trial court properly removed adversary counsel in CHIPS case; reverses order reducing lawyer’s fee
Richland County DH&HS v. D.M.K., 2022AP2190, District IV, 11/14/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat rare CHIPS appeal, COA upholds the circuit court’s decision to remove adversary counsel but reverses the court’s order modifying that attorney’s request for fees.
COA affirms competency ruling but reverses involuntary medication order
State v. M.M.K., 2024AP591-CR, 2024AP592-CR, 2024AP593-CR, 2024AP594-CR, 10/31/24, District IV(1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case which continues a new trend in appeals of involuntary medication appeals, COA holds that while the circuit court correctly found M.M.K. incompetent, it failed to correctly apply Sell in ordering involuntary medication.