On Point blog, page 19 of 487
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State v. Reynaldo Rosalez, 2022AP1929-CR, 6/11/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity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.
Defense Win! Defendant entitled to hearing to determine eligibility for SAP/CIP
State v. Les Paul Henderson, 2023AP2079-CR, 5/31/24, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Henderson fails to persuade COA that a JOC making him eligible for early release programming controls, he does live to fight another day given COA’s order that he receive a hearing at which time the circuit court will have to exercise its discretion to determine his eligibility.
Mother’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge rejected because circuit court entered a TPR dispo order “a reasonable judge could reach”
State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.