On Point blog, page 4 of 49
COA rejects a panoply of challenges to TPR and affirms
Kenosha County DC&FS v. K.E.H., 2024AP1101, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent appeal stemming from a TPR jury trial, COA applies strict legal standards in order to reject the appellant’s multiple claims of ineffectiveness.
COA affirms OWI 1st conviction despite hand sanitizer contamination defense
County of Waukesha v. Jacob A. Vecitis, 2023AP919, 2/12/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Vecitis appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of OWI 1st, and an order denying reconsideration. COA concludes the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and affirms.
COA holds there was reasonable suspicion to seize motorist for unreadable license plate even if plate was, in actuality, readable
State v. Glen Michael Braun, 2022AP1764, 2/25/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case demonstrating the tough hill that litigants must climb to prove an officer lacks reasonable suspicion, COA affirms an order denying Braun’s suppression motion based on a possible equipment violation.
COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution
State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.
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 rejects pro se challenges to OWI 1st and refusal convictions
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.
D4 issues another speedy trial decision recommended for publication, holds that COVID-related delays should not weigh against the state
State v. Cordero D. Coleman, 2023AP2414-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication), case activity
COA holds that a 32-month delay in trying Coleman did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial where the COVID-19 pandemic was the primary cause of the delay. In doing so, COA identifies a new category of reasons for state-attributed delay, “which encompasses those delays that are caused by a reasonable government response to a legitimate public emergency” and holds such delays should not be weighed against the state. (¶56).
SCOW issues two opinions clarifying aspects of appellate procedure
In a set of non-criminal opinions, SCOW issues new guidance on the commonly-invoked rule that COA is not at liberty to disagree with its own precedents and also takes another run at clarifying when a final order is truly “final” for the purposes of appeal.
COA affirms juvenile delinquency order in sufficiency challenge
State v. D.Y., 2024AP710, 12/26/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Daniel” appeals from the circuit court’s order adjudicating him as a juvenile delinquent, on the basis of a second-degree sexual assault of a child offense. (¶1). He contends that the state failed to prove the intent element, specifically, sexual gratification or arousal from the contact. (¶10). The COA concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s decision and affirms.
Defense win! COA affirms suppression of evidence, concluding officer lacked reasonable suspicion for traffic stop
City of Platteville v. Travis Jon Knautz, 2024AP1291 & 1292, 12/5/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In this drunk driving forfeiture case, the city appeals an order granting Knautz’s motion to suppress all of the evidence that police obtained after an investigatory traffic stop. The COA affirms, concluding that the city failed to show that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop.