On Point blog, page 1 of 22
Defense win: Circuit court erred in sua sponte vacating plea after state alleged breach of agreement
State v. Timothy Lester Troon, Jr., 2024AP110-CR, 2/19/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Troon appeals his OWI 5th conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion, in which he argued that the circuit court erred in sua sponte vacating his first plea and judgment of conviction based on a disagreement between the parties about the joint sentencing recommendation that followed the court’s acceptance of his plea. COA agrees, vacating the conviction, reinstate Troon’s first plea and JOC, and remanding for resentencing.
COA clarifies state’s burden to show valid waiver of counsel on a collateral attack motion in decision recommended for publication
State v. Robert M. Christianson, 2024AP1884-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Christianson pleaded no contest to OWI 8th after the circuit court rejected his collateral challenges to 3 prior OWI convictions. On appeal, he renews his arguments that the three convictions are invalid because he did not have legal counsel, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (“KIV”) waive his right to counsel, and the court handling the case failed to find that he was competent to proceed without counsel in each case. COA concludes that Christianson made a prima facie showing that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel in all three cases, but the state met its burden to show that he nonetheless validly waived his right to counsel in 2 of the 3 cases, and the circuit court properly found that he was competent to proceed without counsel.
Defense Win: COA clarifies defense of others doctrine and holds erroneous instructions merit new trial
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.
In 5-1-1 decision, SCOW affirms COA decision rejecting domestic violence victim’s invocation of coercion defense
State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, 7/3/25, affirming an unpublished decision from COA; case activity
Faced with a unique fact pattern arising from an OWI prosecution, SCOW interprets Wisconsin’s coercion defense and finds that Stetzer is unable to prevail, regardless of the clearly sympathetic facts presented.
COA affirms denial of motion to dismiss for state’s failure to preserve video evidence
State v. Jeffrey A. Roth, 2024AP737, 12/11/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Three police officers confronted Roth after receiving a complaint that he was stumbling around and then sitting in a vehicle. The state charged Roth with five counts, including resisting. Before his jury trial, which resulted in two misdemeanor convictions, Roth moved to dismiss based on the police officers’ failure to preserve body and squad camera footage of the underlying incident. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. The COA affirms, concluding that Roth failed to prove the videos were apparently exculpatory, or that the police acted in bad faith.
Despite convincing evidence that domestic violence victim was fleeing for her life when stopped for suspected OWI, COA determines coercion defense unavailing
State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, 3/27/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted; affirmed 7/3/25 case activity
In a difficult case demonstrating the stringent nature of Wisconsin’s coercion defense, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision that the defense did not apply to Stetzer’s conduct, notwithstanding a medley of uniquely sympathetic facts.
COA says lawyer not ineffective for not asserting self-defense in DC
State v. Michael Ross Straight, 2022AP2012, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A woman identified as “A.B.” got out of her car and approached Straight with a machete. Straight, fearing for his life, grabbed A.B., knocked her to the ground, and took the machete from her. He then straddled A.B. with the point of the machete pointing toward her. A friend on scene yelled at Straight; Straight replied “what are you going to do about it?” Then he got up, dropped the machete, and walked away. A.B. departed in her car with the machete.
Third Circuit holds that federal felon in possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to defendant with nonviolent felony
Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023).
In a case highlighting the changed legal landscape for firearm regulation, an en banc panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that the federal government cannot ban a nonviolent felon from lawfully possessing a firearm.
SCOTUS: Defendant convicted in the wrong venue can be retried
Smith v. United States, USSC No. 21-1576, 2023 WL 4002949 (June 15, 2023), affirming United States v. Smith, 22 F. 4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary).
A unanimous Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not bar retrial of a defendant whose conviction is reversed because the prosecution occurred in the wrong venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong location.
COA holds error in information didn’t invalidate repeater enhancer
State v. Steven M. Nelson, 2021AP843-845, 4/4/23, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nelson pleaded guilty to possessing meth as a repeater. He was eligible for the repeater enhancement because, on November 15, 2017, he’d been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in Barron County Case No. 2017CF307. The information in this case noted the Barron County prior, but erroneously said it was another conviction for possessing meth. Postconviction and on appeal, Nelson submitted that the repeater enhancer is invalid because he didn’t receive notice of what the prior conviction was alleged to be.