On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Kelsy R. Wooldridge, 2022AP1927-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity

In a decision not recommended for publication, the COA reversed Kelsy Wooldridge’s conviction for possessing methamphetamine and found that no reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew a bloody syringe seized from her purse contained an unmeasurable amount of the drug.

Marathon County v. S.S., 2024AP1866, 5/8/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sean” appeals orders of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his daughter, “Zoey,” and denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in four respects during the grounds trial, and that he was prejudiced by the individual and cumulative effects of counsel’s deficient performance. COA rejects Sean’s first two IAC claims and concludes that he failed to establish prejudice.

State v. Bernabe Gonzalez,  2024AP358-CR, 5/6/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In what we believe is COA’s first foray into the vexing world of firearm regulation post-Bruen and Rahimi, COA holds that Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting intoxicated persons from “going armed” passes muster under an originalist legal analysis.

State v. Colin R. Dowling, 2024AP524, 5/1/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found sufficient evidence to sustain Colin Dowling’s civil forfeiture obligation for impeding traffic by driving at a slow speed.  Although Dowling argued that there were no reasonable alternatives to slowing down his Tesla to preserve its battery, the COA concluded contacting roadside assistance was a safer alternative than driving 45 miles per hour on an interstate highway where the speed limit was 70.

Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.

State v. Kimberly D. Rowe, 2022AP2122-CR, 4/22/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA considered when a collection of liquor bottles behind the counter of what appeared to be a bar becomes “intoxicating liquor” for which a license is required to possess for intended sales.  Because the State did not prove the identity of the liquid in the bottles or submit the liquid for chemical testing, the COA reversed Kimberly Rowe’s conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor with intent to sell without a license or permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 125.66(1).

State v. T.N., 2024AP1280, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.N. appeals, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney did not object to statements she contends are inadmissible hearsay. COA assumes without deciding that the statements were hearsay and affirms the circuit court’s orders, concluding there was no prejudice to T.N.

State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.

Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.