On Point

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

State ex rel. Wis. Dep’t of Corrs., Div. of Cmty. Corrs. v. Hayes, 2023AP1140, petition for review of a per curiam court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; affirmed 7/3/25; case activity (including briefs)

The Division of Hearings and Appeals decided not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC, on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, prevailed, and DHA appealed. On appeal, DHA and Sellers asked the COA to affirm DHA’s original decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. The COA agreed with DHA and Sellers, reversing the circuit court’s order and affirming DHA’s decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC petitioned for review.

State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock, 2022AP2153-CR, 8/8/24, District IV (authored); case activity

Sehrbrock, convicted of robbery with use of force as PTAC, appeals the judgment of conviction and order denying his postconviction motion in which he challenged a condition of probation requiring that an ignition interlock device be installed on any motor vehicle that he owns or operates. He argued that the IID condition was unreasonable and its term was harsh and excessive. The COA affirms in a 2-1 decision.

Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen & Kevin A. Carr, 2022AP1076, 2/22/24, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

This case concerns Mitchell’s appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. We recognize the case is a bit outside of our normal coverage, but in addition to the fact that D4 has recommended this decision for publication, the case presents an interesting, if somewhat technical, application of law to a factual scenario that is likely of some interest to our readers. The bottom line is that the denial of Mitchell’s petition is affirmed, despite the fact that he indisputably filed proof that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, because he failed to file “all documents related to the administrative process.” Op., ¶33-34.