On Point: 13. Due Process

State v. Scott R. Shallcross, 2023AP362, 10/7/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appear arises from Shallcross’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas based on newly discovered evidence. Shallcross, pro se, argues on appeal that the state committed a Brady violation, and the circuit court should have analyzed his motion as a Brady claim. The state argues that Shallcross is judicially estopped from arguing that he was not responsibible because he admitted as much by pleading guilty, and that the new evidence is not exculpatory under Brady. COA holds that Shallcross is not judicially estopped from raising his plea withdrawal claim based on newly discovered evidence, but agrees with the state that the claim fails under Brady and the newly discovered evidence test.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

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.

State v. Keith Kenyon, 2022AP2228-CR, 9/16/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA is surprisingly candid in acknowledging some of the injustices present in this appeal, the Court ultimately concludes that Kenyon’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent.

Dane County v. Trent Joseph Meyer, 2024AP1630, 8/14/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a conviction for driving faster than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions where the defendant drove 20 miles-per-hour above the speed limit and came “close” to other cars’ bumpers. 

State v. Kordell Grady, 2025 WI 22, 6/13/25, affirming COA’s summary disposition order; case activity

Although SCOW presumably took this case to clarify the rules of Zoom court–and the oral argument focused intensely on such questions–SCOW ultimately opts to issue a decision which makes no substantive law and denies relief based on what it claims is a deferential review of the circuit court’s factual findings.

State v. Anthony J. LaRose, 2022AP647-CR, District 3, 3/25/25 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

LaRose appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing on his conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, in which he claimed that the circuit court judge was biased against him based on three sets of facts. COA rejects all of LaRose’s arguments and affirms, holding that the court’s comments were related to appropriate sentencing factors and LaRose failed to establish sufficient risk of actual bias.

State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.

Andrew v. White, USSC No. 23-6573 (per curiam), 1/21/25, vacating Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299 (10th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a rare defense win (of sorts) on federal habeas in the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS clarifies that its decision in Payne v. Tennessee “clearly established” the rule that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.”

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.