On Point blog, page 3 of 497
COA once again creates questions about the proper application of D.J.W. in recommitment appeals
Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.
COA finds challenge to contempt order in CHIPS case moot
Manitowoc County HSD v. K.H., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Confronted with a relatively straightforward challenge to the circuit court’s discretion, COA finds that no exceptions to mootness require it to address K.H.’s arguments.
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COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.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 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.
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); errata issued and revised opinion issued 8/13/26; 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.