On Point blog, page 1 of 499
COA dismissed pro se appellant’s appeal for failing to cite to the record or develop legal arguments.
State of Wisconsin v. Koslawandsky B. Harris, 2026AP462, 11/4/26, District II (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirms pro-se appellant’s twenty-year old conviction because he did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
COA reverses order suppressing evidence gathered during warrantless search of rental car
State v. St. Clair Riley, 2024AP2360-CR, 11/3/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In this state’s appeal, the circuit court ordered suppression of the evidence gathered during a warrantless search of a rental car driven by St. Clair Riley, reasoning that the officers should have contacted the rental car company before having the car towed and failed to complete an inventory form. COA disagrees that these issues render the search unconstitutional and reverses.
COA holds that Ch. 51 respondent forfeited his right to counsel by successfully requesting change of appointed counsel
Winnebago County v. C.B., 2026AP1754-FT, 11/4/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case that signals an alarming watering down of the forfeiture standard, COA finds nothing improper about forcing a mentally ill Chapter 51 respondent to represent themselves at a final hearing simply because they requested a single change in counsel.
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 affirms TPR default judgment entered after one missed hearing
State v. M.R., 2026AP1742 & 2026AP1743, 10/20/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA holds that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it found “Margo” in default when she missed one court appearance and affirms orders terminating her parental rights.
COA holds there was probable cause to arrest for OWI
County of Jefferson v. Juan Carlos Garcia, 2025AP1199-1200, 10/29/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Garcia scores a minor victory by persuading COA to set aside FST evidence, COA finds the evidence still supported probable cause.
COA affirms revoking driver’s license for refusing to consent to a blood draw because law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to subject driver to field sobriety tests, which provided probable to arrest for OWI.
State of Wisconsin v. Frederick Ronald Schwenk, 2025AP2528, 10/29/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order revoking the defendant’s driver’s license for 12 months because a state trooper had reasonable suspicion to subject a driver to field sobriety testing, and thereafter had probable cause to arrest the driver for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
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: Defendant not entitled to jury instruction on necessity at OWI trial because turning on vehicle was not only means to prevent harm from exposure to cold.
City of Kenosha v. Jackson Rathod, 2024AP2307, 10/28/26, District II (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. It held that the defendant was not entitled to have the jury instructed on necessity because he had an alternative means of staying warm after drinking alcohol at a winter house party, other than returning to his car to turn on the heat.
Defense win: In decision recommended for publication, COA clarifies significance of “read ins,” rejects attempt to rewrite plea breach law
State v. Lemar C. Newell, Jr., 2024AP1549-CR, 10/27/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
In a significant decision, COA finds that the State breached the plea agreement when it asked for a charge to be read-in, instead of dismissed outright, at sentencing.