On Point blog, page 1 of 263
In fact-intensive TPR appeal, COA rejects numerous creative legal arguments and affirms
State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.
COA holds that defendant in forfeiture action is entitled to court costs following DA’s concession and dismissal of case
Dane County v. Jeramiah Bradley, 2025AP172, 9/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unusual turn of events, the State actually conceded its prosecution of Bradley was unsupported under the law. The judge dismissed the case, but denied Bradley’s requests for costs. Although the State puts up a number of arguments to get around paying $381.85 in costs, COA rejects those arguments and reverses.
COA: Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial on grounds to terminate parental rights.
State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.
COA holds that stipulation forecloses challenge to lack of expert testimony at protective placement hearing; evidence otherwise sufficient
V.K. v. D.J.F., 2024AP2028, 9/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA ducks a recurrent issue as to whether expert testimony is required to prove the grounds for a protective placement and otherwise affirms the circuit court’s order granting this privately-filed petition for protective placement.
COA orders new trial in CHIPS proceeding because circuit court excluded evidence that respondent executed power of attorney to guarantee child’s care while she was in custody
State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.
COA affirms order denying child’s request for change of placement in CHIPS case
Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.
COA affirms TPR orders, concludes that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and circuit court properly excluded evidence related to a younger child
State v. M.W., 2025AP2364 &2365 , 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to two of her children, “Liam” and “Karen,” and the order denying her motion for postdisposition relief. She argues that her trial counsel was ineffective when by failing object to multiple instances of hearsay, and her due process
rights were violated when the court ruled that she could not introduce evidence at trial that another child remained in her care. COA affirms.
COA rejects hearsay and D.J.W. challenges to ch. 51 commitment
Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.
COA holds blood draw results admissible under independent source doctrine
State v. Michael R. Meton, 2025AP141-CR, 8/27/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Meton challenges the judgment convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, 2nd offense. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood result after police administered a preliminary breath test without first asking for his consent. COA agrees with the circuit court that suppression of the blood draw because police had independent grounds apart from the PBT to arrest Meton on suspicion of operating while intoxicated.
COA: Defendant forfeits argument for discovery violation because no objection made at trial
State v. Rebecca Lea Kamm, 2024AP1944-CR, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the defendant forfeited her argument that the State did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) by not disclosing to her counsel video evidence within a reasonable time before trial. Although the evidence was not provided to counsel until the morning of trial, the issue was forfeited because counsel did not object to its admission.