On Point: B. Published opinions

Van Oudenhoven v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2023AP70-FT, 6/4/24, District III (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/12/24; dismissed as improvidently granted 6/24/25 case activity

Court of Appeals affirms circuit court’s order affirming DOJ’s decision to deny applicant’s request to purchase firearm after applicant’s conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was expunged.

State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.

In March, the court of appeals ordered the publication of two criminal law related decisions. In April, the court ordered the publication of one such decision.

State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2022AP959-CR, 4/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24, reversed 6/27/25 case activity

In a must-read defense win, COA holds that the State’s “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s speedy trial rights entitle him to dismissal of the underlying complaint.

State v. Maria A. Larson, 2023AP1534-CRAC, 4/24/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Larson’s frustrated attempts to request judicial substitution are finally vindicated in this published decision emphasizing a plain text reading of the statute’s straightforward legal requirements.

State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, 4/12/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24 case activity

After McAdory persuaded the court of appeals to reverse his OWI conviction and grant him a new trial, the state pulled the “old switcheroo” on McAdory by getting the circuit court to swap his previously dismissed restricted controlled substance conviction with the OWI conviction overturned by the court of appeals. Instead of a new OWI trial, McAdory was stuck with a new sentence on his previously dismissed RCS conviction. After rejecting McAdory’s challenges to the circuit court’s post-remittitur actions and his double jeopardy claims, the court of appeals affirms.

State v. Ashley Jean Campbell, 2020AP1813, 3/5/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

As a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that regardless of whether the “instinct exception” exists, “the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle.” Op., ¶5.  More specifically, the court concludes that the canine “did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door.” As a result, the court reverses Campbell’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions to grant her motion to suppress.

So far this year, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has published one criminal law related decision. Here are the publication orders for January and February 2024. The lone published decision is in State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2024 WI App 4 (rejecting a constitutional challenge to the criminalization of driving with a detectable non-impairing cocaine metabolite).

State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a). 

Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen & Kevin A. Carr, 2022AP1076, 2/22/24, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

This case concerns Mitchell’s appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. We recognize the case is a bit outside of our normal coverage, but in addition to the fact that D4 has recommended this decision for publication, the case presents an interesting, if somewhat technical, application of law to a factual scenario that is likely of some interest to our readers. The bottom line is that the denial of Mitchell’s petition is affirmed, despite the fact that he indisputably filed proof that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, because he failed to file “all documents related to the administrative process.” Op., ¶33-34.