On Point blog, page 3 of 489
COA applies harmless error rule to statutory right to be present at plea hearing, holds any error was harmless
State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity
Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
COA affirms denial of motion to dismiss delinquency petition filed 351 days after the § 938.25(2)(a) deadline.
State v. K.R.C., 2025AP90, 12/9/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Kyle” appeals, arguing that the state did not have good cause for filing a delinquency petition outside the 20-day filing deadline in WIS. STAT. § 938.25(2)(a). COA disagrees and affirms.
COA issues first impression decision on constitutionality of warrant to search contents of smartphone, holds “the warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the [smart]phone,” and its authorization must be “limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established… in the warrant’s supporting affidavit”
State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.
COA: Circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in finding deceased officer’s body camera footage could not be authenticated.
State v. Billy Ray Edward Johnson, 2024AP1135, 12/2/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses order denying State’s motion to admit body camera footage compiled by a deceased police officer.
Defense win: COA reverses Chapter 51 order and finds County did not prove current dangerousness
Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.
COA finds sufficient evidence to affirm trial conviction for violating domestic abuse injunction by sending Facebook message.
State v. Clinton J. Adams, 2025AP1179, 11/26/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms jury’s conviction for knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction over sufficiency challenge.
COA clarifies “serious crime” factor in involuntary med challenges; rejects challenges to treatment plan and affirms
State v. B.M.T., 2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.
Defense Win: COA relies on Melanie L. and Virgil D. to reverse involuntary medication order
Outagamie County v. R.M.R., 2025AP561, 11/18/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a strong defense win, COA rejects the County’s arguments and holds that the evidence is insufficient to support this medication order as the County failed to name the particular medication it sought to involuntarily administer.