On Point blog, page 2 of 489
COA: Criminal charges for violating conditions imposed as a result of refusing a warrantless blood draw are constitutional.
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan,2024AP1012-CR, 1/6/26, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicholas Sparby-Duncan’s motion to dismiss charges for failing to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) above .02. The COA found that the IID and PAC charges did not impose criminal penalties for Sparby-Duncan previously refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, although he was required to install an IID – which subjected him to the .02 PAC — as a result of his 2008 conviction for refusing.
COA expresses skepticism about window tint argument and upholds OWI stop
State v. Joseph M. Heroff, 2025AP684-CR, 12/23/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA applies general reasonable suspicion principles to uphold a stop based on overly dark tint, holding that the officer’s testimony was sufficient and that he did not need to articulate any specific expertise as to the legal tint percentage.
COA dismisses appeal related to remedial sanction for contempt of court for nonparty in CHIPS case
Manitowoc County HSD v. K.H., 2024AP1717, District II, 12/23/25, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
COA dismisses as moot an appeal from the circuit court’s order that resulted in K.H. serving 20 days of a remedial sanction for contempt of court.
COA confirms that restitution statute providing defendant may raise “any” defense available in a civil action does not include contributory negligence
State v. David T. Waits, 2023AP1592 and 2023AP1593, 12/23/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed an award of restitution to the victim of a hit and run although the defendant was not allowed to introduce evidence of the victim’s contributory negligence and the victim’s preexisting conditions aggravated her injuries.
COA holds plea questionnaire and waiver of counsel forms insufficient to shift burden for collateral attack
State v. Matthew John Flynn, 2024AP2306-CR, 12/17/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Flynn appeals his operating while intoxicated, third offense, conviction and an order denying his collateral attack motion. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion because he alleged sufficient facts to suggest that the prior conviction did not rest upon a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. COA affirms.
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s exercise of discretion on disposition determination
Marquette County DHS v. J.J., 2025AP1963, 1964 & 1965, 12/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
J.J. stipulated to the existence of grounds for termination but contested disposition. He now appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to three of his children, arguing that the circuit court erred because it based its termination decision in part on his poverty. COA concludes that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms.
COA affirms continuing protective placement over sufficiency challenge in a “close case.”
Eau Claire County v. R.B.-K., 2025AP1466, 12/16/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a “close case,” the COA affirmed continuing protective placement over a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that “Rory” was a danger to himself.
Publication Orders for October, November and December
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for October, November and December.
COA rejects challenges to discretionary order in CHIPS case and affirms
State v. A.B., Jr., 2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.
COA resolves recurring challenge to DV enhancer, rejects reliance on Rector, and applies definition of “separate occasions” from prior case law
State v. Brian Tyrone Ricketts, Jr., 2024AP2291-CR, 12/9/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Following on the heels of the recent litigation as to the meaning of “separate occasions” that reached SCOW in the Rector case, COA holds that two charges in the same case constitute “separate occasions” for the purposes of the domestic abuse repeater.