On Point blog, page 8 of 484

Publication Orders for January and February

In January and February, COA ordered several cases published which are relevant to our practice:

Read full article >

COA rejects a panoply of challenges to TPR and affirms

Kenosha County DC&FS v. K.E.H., 2024AP1101, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-dependent appeal stemming from a TPR jury trial, COA applies strict legal standards in order to reject the appellant’s multiple claims of ineffectiveness.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to extension order; holds that stipulation to original commitment dooms sufficiency challenge

Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.

Read full article >

COA affirms OWI 1st conviction despite hand sanitizer contamination defense

County of Waukesha v. Jacob A. Vecitis, 2023AP919, 2/12/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Vecitis appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of OWI 1st, and an order denying reconsideration. COA concludes the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and affirms.

Read full article >

COA holds there was reasonable suspicion to seize motorist for unreadable license plate even if plate was, in actuality, readable

State v. Glen Michael Braun, 2022AP1764, 2/25/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case demonstrating the tough hill that litigants must climb to prove an officer lacks reasonable suspicion, COA affirms an order denying Braun’s suppression motion based on a possible equipment violation.

Read full article >

COA dismisses another ch. 51 recommitment appeal as moot

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.

Read full article >

COA: Traffic stop not unreasonably prolonged by officer’s request for field sobriety tests

State v. Emily Anne Ertl, 2023AP234-CR, 2/18/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ertl appeals the denial of her motion to suppress on the ground that police impermissibly extended the scope of her initial detention when the officer asked her if she would consent to field sobriety tests. COA affirms, concluding that her detention was not unreasonably prolonged by law enforcement’s single request that she voluntarily submit to field sobriety tests.

Read full article >

Defense Win! COA reverses order denying suppression motion in juvenile appeal

State v. K.R.W., 2024AP1210, 2/19/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although COA does not address K.R.W.’s broader constitutional argument, it holds that suppression is warranted given the State’s violation of a statute requiring an intake worker to warn a juvenile of his right to counsel and right against self-incrimination before taking that juvenile’s statement.

Read full article >

COA affirms ch. 51 medication order in “close case”

Dane County v. A.M.M., 2024AP1670, 2/13/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amanda” challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to her medication order. The COA calls this a “close case,” but affirms.

Read full article >

COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution

State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.

Read full article >