On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Brown County Health and Human Services v. R.U., 2024AP45-6 4/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another fact-dependent TPR appeal, COA affirms given well-settled (and difficult to overcome) legal standards.

Jackson County Department of Human Services v. I.J.R.,, 2023AP1495-6 4/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another beefy TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of I.J.R.’s arguments and affirms.

State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, 4/12/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24 case activity

After McAdory persuaded the court of appeals to reverse his OWI conviction and grant him a new trial, the state pulled the “old switcheroo” on McAdory by getting the circuit court to swap his previously dismissed restricted controlled substance conviction with the OWI conviction overturned by the court of appeals. Instead of a new OWI trial, McAdory was stuck with a new sentence on his previously dismissed RCS conviction. After rejecting McAdory’s challenges to the circuit court’s post-remittitur actions and his double jeopardy claims, the court of appeals affirms.

State v. Iain A. Johnson, 2022AP389-CR, 4/2/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although COA concedes this is a “close case,” it nevertheless concludes that the evidence satisfies the relatively low burden for reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, 3/27/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted; affirmed 7/3/25 case activity

In a difficult case demonstrating the stringent nature of Wisconsin’s coercion defense, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision that the defense did not apply to Stetzer’s conduct, notwithstanding a medley of uniquely sympathetic facts.

Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.

State v. Allan Nathan Carroll, Jr. A/K/A/ U’si Ch-ab, 2023AP870, 3/20/24, District 2 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Carroll, Jr., a.k.a. Ch-ab, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of resisting or obstructing an officer. Ch-ab raises two claims on appeal: (1) that his constitutional rights were violated during a traffic stop that led to his arrest and conviction and (2) that his “status as an ‘Indigenous Aborigine American’ relieved him of the obligation to comply with Wisconsin law requiring that motor vehicles operating on Wisconsin roads be registered and display license plates.” The court rejects his arguments on appeal and affirms.

State v. K.P., 2023AP2404-06, 3/19/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.P. (“Kevin”) challenged the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights on two grounds: (1) that his own testimony demostrated he had a substantial relationship with his three children and (2) because there was a lack of evidence concerning the childrens’ wishes. The court of appeals concludes that is is “clear” the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining that terminating Kevin’s parental rights to his children was in their best interests.

State v. Asif Ahmed, 2023AP1796, 3/14/24, District IV (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ahmed raises a few different arguments challenging the circuit court’s decision that he improperly refused to submit to a OWI blood draw, but the court of appeals rejects them all, agrees probable cause existed to arrest Ahmed for OWI, and affirms.

Kenosha County DCFS v. J.M.C. III, 2023AP1382, 3/13/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In affirming the termination of J.M.C.’s parental rights to his daughter, the court holds that (1) the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying J.M.C.’s request for a new attorney and (2) the circuit court’s failure to take testimony in support of J.M.C.’s no contest plea to grounds was harmless.