On Point blog, page 1 of 214
In complex statutory construction case, COA clarifies authority of DNR wardens to conduct OWI investigation
State v. John R. Phelan, 2024AP777-CR, 8/14/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a very complex analysis of the statutes which empower DNR wardens, COA holds that the warden in this case had authority to seize Phelan for suspected littering, validly detained him after obtaining probable cause that he possessed THC, but violated the law by conducting an investigation into an OWI.
COA calculates discharge date on sentences for crimes committed between 1999 and 2003 in published case.
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity
COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.
COA holds that a Ch. 54 guardian does not violate statute prohibiting “isolation” from family members when restricting contact is in ward’s best interest
Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”
Defense Win: COA grants new trial in multiplicity challenge to Len Bias case
State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, decision originally issued 6/25/25, subsequently withdrawn, reissued 7/18/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).
Publication Orders for April, May and June
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for April, May and June.
COA addresses dual sentence credit when imposed and stayed sentence is lifted in case recommended for publication.
State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios. Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked. Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.
COA: State does not need to prove intent to conceal victim’s homicide to prove defendant hid corpse with intent to conceal a crime.
State v. Roger A. Minck, 2022AP2292-CR, 5/28/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case of first impression, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that hiding a corpse with intent to conceal a crime under Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) requires the State to prove the defendant intended to conceal any crime, not a crime related to the victim’s homicide. The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the jury’s verdict finding Roger Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.
COA holds that allocution statements are admissible following plea withdrawal
State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 2023AP2192-CR, 5/28/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In a consequential appeal, COA holds that allocution statements are admissible evidence after a plea has been withdrawn.
March Publication Order
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.
In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.