On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Racine County v. R.P.L., 2025AP813-FT, 7/30/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal from an annual protective placement review, R.P.L. escapes a finding of mootness but loses on the merits.

Washburn County v. L.R.Y., 2025AP272-FT, District 3, 7/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lily” appeals an original commitment and involuntary med order, arguing that the circuit court violated her right to have the County’s fact witnesses testify in person. COA agrees that, under Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(d), the circuit court erred by failing to sustain Lily’s objection to the county’s fact witnesses appearing by video at the final hearing.

County of Milwaukee v. Sharon A. Dawson, 2024AP584, 7/22/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Dawson challenges the actions of the Milwaukee Police in enforcing the traffic code as racial profiling, her her pro se arguments are too poorly pleaded for the Court to address them.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings. 

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

Village of Reeseville v. Frederick J. Prough, 2024AP1046, 7/3/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case of potential interest to those litigating ordinance violations, COA holds that an alleged technical defect in the citation form does not void the citation itself.

Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, decision originally issued 6/25/25, subsequently withdrawn, reissued 7/18/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for April, May and June.