On Point blog, page 2 of 496
COA rejects sufficiency and DJW arguments and affirms ch. 51 extension
Racine County v. P.L., 2026AP132, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects P.L.’s arguments that the county failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support a conclusion that he is dangerous under the second standard (via the recommitment standard) and the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings, and affirms.
COA construes second juvenile waiver petition as motion for reconsideration; affirms denial
State v. A.V., 2026AP359, 6/30/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
AV turned 17 after the circuit court denied the state’s first waiver petition. The state petitioned again to waive A.V. into adult criminal court, citing WIS. STAT. § 938.18(2) as the statutory basis for the petition and making new allegations. COA affirms the circuit court’s denial of the state’s second petition without an evidentiary hearing.
COA affirms TPR order and denial of postdisposition motion
Pierce County Dept of Human Services v. K.D.B., 2025AP2643, 6/30/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Kevin” appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, and an order denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance at the grounds trial. He also argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in his daughter’s best interests. COA affirms.
In light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B, COA reverses circuit court’s order dismissing Ch. 51 petition because expert report was not timely.
Ozaukee County v. T.D.D., 2025AP2257, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Ozaukee County’s petition for commitment under Chapter 51 in light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B. that failing to comply with the 48-hour deadline to make expert reports available to counsel did not divest the circuit court of competency.
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.
COA affirms TPR order in appeal challenging sufficiency of the state’s “reasonable efforts” and ADA compliance
State v. G.L., 2026AP865, 7/1/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Gwen” challenges the termination of her rights to her child, “Annie,” on the basis that the state presented insufficient evidence to the jury that the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) made a reasonable effort to provide her with court-ordered services and that DMCW did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COA affirms.
COA affirms suppression order because officer’s mistake of law did not provide reasonable suspicion for traffic stop.
State v. Michael P. Bundy, 2025AP1072, 6/25/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing the fruits of a traffic stop because an officer’s mistake of law regarding the driver’s suspected violation of the window tinting regulation did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
COA reverses sentencing court’s order de facto terminating defendant’s parental rights
State v. Dominic L. Brister, 2024AP1516-CR, 6/30/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
COA issues a broad defense win, holding that the First Amendment forbids the extreme no-contact order entered in this case.
COA certifies sentencing challenge with potentially broad-sweeping impact
State v. Nicholas B. Selerski., 2024AP1846-CR, 6/25/26, District IV (certification opinion); case activity
In a case that might make many appellate attorneys justifiably nervous, COA asks whether we’ve all been getting sentencing law wrong for decades.
Defense win: COA reverses summary judgment on continuing denial of visitation ground and orders summary judgment for parents on same ground
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. J.L.C. and M.M.C., 2026AP498 and 647, 6/25/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
JLC and MMC each appeal the circuit court order terminating their parental rights to their child, CMC, arguing that the court erred in granting Waupaca County’s motion for summary judgment on grounds. COA concludes that the ground on which SJ was granted, continuing denial of visitation, requires the county to prove that the parents received adequate notice of the conditions of resuming visitation, and the county cannot make this showing under the facts. Therefore, COA reverses the order and remands with directions that the circuit court grant partial summary judgment to both parents on the continuing denial of visitation ground.