On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction where one count is not “final” due to deferred judgment agreement.
State of Wisconsin v. Gustin J. King, 2024AP2064-CRNM, 2/18/26, District II (recommended for publication) (per curiam); case activity
The COA, in the first published decision on the issue, holds that it does not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of conviction when one or more of the criminal counts is unresolved due to the existence of a deferred judgment agreement (DJA).
COA finds that county failing to timely file annual review of protective placement does not deprive the circuit court of competency.
Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, 2/10/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
The COA held in a decision recommended for publication that the deadline for counties to file the annual review of a person subject to protective placement is directory and failing to file timely does not deprive the circuit court of competency, while reminding parties that timely annual review remains statutorily and constitutionally required.
COA holds that exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence of defendant’s flight from police after traffic stop was allegedly unlawfully extended.
State of Wisconsin v. Alsherrife Mire, 2024AP2481-CR, 2/4/26, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In a decision recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his allegedly unlawfully extended traffic stop because evidence of his flight from police was not derived from the stop.
Defense Win: COA, in decision recommended for publication, finds reverse waiver statute unconstitutional
State v. Noah Q. Mann-Tate, 2024AP2585-CR, 2/3/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
In a massively consequential decision, COA reaffirms the uniqueness of children facing criminal charges and finds our notoriously-stringent reverse waiver statute unconstitutional as a result.
COA: Criminal charges for violating conditions imposed as a result of refusing a warrantless blood draw are constitutional.
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan,2024AP1012-CR, 1/6/26, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicholas Sparby-Duncan’s motion to dismiss charges for failing to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) above .02. The COA found that the IID and PAC charges did not impose criminal penalties for Sparby-Duncan previously refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, although he was required to install an IID – which subjected him to the .02 PAC — as a result of his 2008 conviction for refusing.