On Point blog, page 16 of 484
COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.
City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.
COA holds that appeal of Chapter 55 protective placement review is moot
Washington County v. T.R.Z., 2024AP21, District II, 6/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “Tim’s” appeal presents several issues for review, COA dismisses the appeal as moot given the existence of an intervening Watts review.
Defense Win! Advancement in PTSD treatment is a “new factor” for sentence modification
State v. Robert M. Schueller, 2023AP1755-CR, 6/20/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals holds that advances in PTSD treatment constitute a new factor, where the sentencing court expressly relied on its understanding that Schueller’s PTSD was uncurable in determining his risk to the public and the term of his incarceration.
COA affirms refusal based on delayed and equivocal consent
Village of Butler v. Brandon J. Hernandez, 2023AP1707, 6/19/24, District II (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity
Hernandez challenges the circuit court’s finding that he improperly refused to submit to a OWI blood draw, arguing that he consented. The court of appeals rejects his argument, concluding that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.
COA holds that circuit court properly concluded defendant did not establish existence of medication-induced amnesia
State v. Reynaldo Rosalez, 2022AP1929-CR, 6/11/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In a case illustrating the stringent standard of review used to assess findings of fact, COA dispatches with Rosalez’s claim that his lawyer failed to discuss a defense related to his alleged medication-induced amnesia.
Defense Win! COA reverses recommitment order
Marathon County v. N.R.P., 2023AP638, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 reversal, COA finds fault with both the circuit court’s decision to admit and rely on hearsay evidence and its failure to make the required findings.
Speeding motorist’s attempt to undo conviction in COA fails under governing standard of review
Winnebago County v. Thomas J. Roberts, 2023AP1808, District II, 6/12/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of a conviction for speeding, COA easily dispatches Roberts’s arguments given the deferential standard of review for findings of fact.
DOJ’s decision to deny application for firearm affirmed where applicant’s misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was expunged.
Van Oudenhoven v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2023AP70-FT, 6/4/24, District III (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/12/24; dismissed as improvidently granted 6/24/25 case activity
Court of Appeals affirms circuit court’s order affirming DOJ’s decision to deny applicant’s request to purchase firearm after applicant’s conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was expunged.
Police properly requested PBT; had probable cause to arrest intoxicated motorist
State v. Joseph S. Schenian, 2023AP2017-CR, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite Schenian’s best efforts to do away with a damaging PBT result, COA rejects his arguments and affirms.
COA finds intoxicated driver was not subjected to “constructive arrest” and affirms denial of motion to suppress
City of Hartford v. Edward H. White, 2023AP1813 & 2023AP1814, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although White tries to argue that he was under an unconstitutional constructive arrest when initially seized for suspicion of an OWI offense, COA finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.