On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

State v. Christopher J. Syrrakos & Kristyn A. Shattuck, 2024AP554 & 2024AP556, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The COA held, in a decision recommended for publication, that a licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for offenses related to possessing, manufacturing, and delivering products that contain concentrations of THC above the threshold to be classified as “hemp” without a referral by the agency concerned with regulating the hemp industry.

State v. Scott R. Shallcross, 2023AP362, 10/7/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appear arises from Shallcross’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas based on newly discovered evidence. Shallcross, pro se, argues on appeal that the state committed a Brady violation, and the circuit court should have analyzed his motion as a Brady claim. The state argues that Shallcross is judicially estopped from arguing that he was not responsibible because he admitted as much by pleading guilty, and that the new evidence is not exculpatory under Brady. COA holds that Shallcross is not judicially estopped from raising his plea withdrawal claim based on newly discovered evidence, but agrees with the state that the claim fails under Brady and the newly discovered evidence test.

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for July, August and September.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of  defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.

State v. Keith Kenyon, 2022AP2228-CR, 9/16/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA is surprisingly candid in acknowledging some of the injustices present in this appeal, the Court ultimately concludes that Kenyon’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent.

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.

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.

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.”