On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.

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.

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).

Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication.  The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.

State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.

State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak, 2024AP469-CR, 1/16/25, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

Rauch Sharak’s appeal concerns whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when an electronic service provider (ESP) scans for and reviews digital files in an individual’s account that are flagged as child pornography; and when law enforcement subsequently opens and views any flagged files that the ESP sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).

State v. Holly J. Grimslid, 2024AP954, 1/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA holds that, even if officer’s actions denying the defendant’s request to use the bathroom while he waited to obtain warrant for a blood draw were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, suppressing evidence of the blood draw is not a viable remedy.

State v. Christopher A. Gore, 2023AP169-CR, 1/7/25, District III (recommended for publication), case activity

The Court of Appeals held, in a decision recommended for publication, that Christopher Gore’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent, and the officer’s statement that he would seek to obtain a warrant if Gore did not consent did not invalidate his consent.

Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.