On Point blog, page 1 of 485

In fact-intensive TPR appeal, COA rejects numerous creative legal arguments and affirms

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.

Read full article >

Publication Orders for July, August and September

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for July, August and September.

Read full article >

Defense win: COA holds revocation of NGI acquittee’s conditional release for rule violations under § 971.17(3)(e) is unconstitutional

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.

Read full article >

Defense win: In published decision, COA holds that jurors must agree on period of abandonment in TPR

S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of  defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.

Read full article >

COA holds that defendant in forfeiture action is entitled to court costs following DA’s concession and dismissal of case

Dane County v. Jeramiah Bradley, 2025AP172, 9/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an unusual turn of events, the State actually conceded its prosecution of Bradley was unsupported under the law. The judge dismissed the case, but denied Bradley’s requests for costs. Although the State puts up a number of arguments to get around paying $381.85 in costs, COA rejects those arguments and reverses.

Read full article >

COA: Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial on grounds to terminate parental rights.

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.

Read full article >

COA, bound by precedent, rejects constitutional challenge involving mandatory minimum CSA charges

State v. Keith Kenyon, 2022AP2228-CR, 9/16/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA is surprisingly candid in acknowledging some of the injustices present in this appeal, the Court ultimately concludes that Kenyon’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent.

Read full article >

COA holds that stipulation forecloses challenge to lack of expert testimony at protective placement hearing; evidence otherwise sufficient

V.K. v. D.J.F., 2024AP2028, 9/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA ducks a recurrent issue as to whether expert testimony is required to prove the grounds for a protective placement and otherwise affirms the circuit court’s order granting this privately-filed petition for protective placement.

Read full article >

COA orders new trial in CHIPS proceeding because circuit court excluded evidence that respondent executed power of attorney to guarantee child’s care while she was in custody

State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.

Read full article >

COA affirms order denying child’s request for change of placement in CHIPS case

Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.

Read full article >