On Point blog, page 6 of 269
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s exercise of discretion on disposition determination
Marquette County DHS v. J.J., 2025AP1963, 1964 & 1965, 12/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
J.J. stipulated to the existence of grounds for termination but contested disposition. He now appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to three of his children, arguing that the circuit court erred because it based its termination decision in part on his poverty. COA concludes that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms.
COA affirms continuing protective placement over sufficiency challenge in a “close case.”
Eau Claire County v. R.B.-K., 2025AP1466, 12/16/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a “close case,” the COA affirmed continuing protective placement over a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that “Rory” was a danger to himself.
COA rejects challenges to discretionary order in CHIPS case and affirms
State v. A.B., Jr., 2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.
COA applies harmless error rule to statutory right to be present at plea hearing, holds any error was harmless
State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity
Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
COA affirms denial of motion to dismiss delinquency petition filed 351 days after the § 938.25(2)(a) deadline.
State v. K.R.C., 2025AP90, 12/9/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Kyle” appeals, arguing that the state did not have good cause for filing a delinquency petition outside the 20-day filing deadline in WIS. STAT. § 938.25(2)(a). COA disagrees and affirms.
COA: Circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in finding deceased officer’s body camera footage could not be authenticated.
State v. Billy Ray Edward Johnson, 2024AP1135, 12/2/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses order denying State’s motion to admit body camera footage compiled by a deceased police officer.
Defense win: COA reverses Chapter 51 order and finds County did not prove current dangerousness
Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.
COA finds sufficient evidence to affirm trial conviction for violating domestic abuse injunction by sending Facebook message.
State v. Clinton J. Adams, 2025AP1179, 11/26/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms jury’s conviction for knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction over sufficiency challenge.