On Point blog, page 3 of 496
Defense win: COA reverses order continuing protective placement
La Crosse County v. P.A.E., 2025AP303, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses the circuit court’s order continuing PAE’s protective placement on the basis that La Crosse County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that PAE was so totally incapable of providing for her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.
COA, in published decision, further clarifies that not every plea colloquy defect merits a Bangert hearing
State v. Terral Dontae Wallace, 2024AP2150-CR, 6/23/26, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Although there is no dispute that the circuit court failed to advise Wallace of a presumptive minimum sentence during the plea colloquy, the court of appeals determines that no evidentiary hearing is required and affirms.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
Defense win: COA affirms order suppressing blood test evidence due to coercion
City of Antigo v. John Paul Fermanich, 2023AP1834, 6/16/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The City of Antigo appeals an order granting John Paul Fermanich’s motion to suppress blood evidence because Fermanich’s consent to the blood draw was coerced. COA affirms in this “close case” as it is the city’s burden to demonstrate that Fermanich freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw.
COA affirms traffic judgment over pro se sufficiency challenges
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams, 2025AP2110, 6/16/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Kent Austin Williams, pro se, challenges the circuit court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding on the basis that Milwaukee County did not present sufficient evidence to support the violation. COA disagrees and affirms.
COA affirms juvenile adjudication, finds that juvenile’s writings were “true threats”
State v. I.T.S., 2025AP2517, 6/17/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although I.T.S. argues that his writings composed during an in-school suspension were private and not true threats for the purposes of the First Amendment, COA affirms.
COA: Felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling statute of limitations.
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA held that felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.
Defense win: COA reverses TPR dispositional order
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.J.T., 2026AP794, 6/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
CJT appeals the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son, JJT, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the required factors at disposition. Despite the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA agrees, reversing the termination order and remanding for a proper exercise of discretion.
COA: To continue protective placement, county does not need to show prior instances of specific harm to prove substantial risk of future harm.
Ozaukee County v. J.J.W., 2025AP1702, 6/3/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order continuing “Jacob’s” protective placement and determined the County did not need to establish a substantial risk of future harm by presenting evidence of previous harm identical to the harm that is anticipated.
COA: Driver suspected of operating under the influence not entitled to alternative test to measure intoxication until arrest.
Portage County v. Adam N. Dombrowski, 2025AP204, 5/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that a driver suspected of operating while intoxicated was not entitled to an alternative test to measure the driver’s blood, breath, or urine until he was arrested. The circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood test were therefore affirmed.