On Point blog, page 2 of 12
In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 3/11/26; case activity
In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.
COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution
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.
7th Circuit rejects facial challenge to § 971.17(4)(d)
Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, No. 23-3345, 8/21/24
This habeas appeal is limited to a facial challenge to the NGI conditional release statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). The Seventh Circuit rejects Stowe’s argument, concluding that he cannot show that there are no circumstances under which the law’s application would be valid.
COA issues published decision interpreting 971.365(1)(b) and rejects arguments for plea withdrawal
State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.
Circuit court properly ordered defendant to pay extradition costs
State v. Jonathon S. Geiger, 2022AP1270-CR, District III, 7/11/23, not recommended for publication; case activity (briefs available)
Geiger argues the circuit court erroneously ordered him to pay extradition costs in connection with a sentencing after revocation hearing. COA rejects his statutory construction arguments and affirms.
COA affirms extension of involuntary mental commitment order, order for involuntary medication, entered in absentia based on its understanding of binding precedent
Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, District II, 7/28/23, petition for review granted 12/12/23; reversed 7/5/24; 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a Chapter 51 case with troubling due process implications, COA is compelled to affirm by virtue of what it believes to be binding precedent.
Defense Win! COA holds that circuit court improperly required defendant to reimburse attorney fees related to dismissed case
State v. Aman Deep Singh, 2022AP1202-04, District I, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a somewhat messy pro se appeal, the court of appeals agrees that the circuit court improperly required Singh to reimburse attorney’s fees but rejects his remaining claims.
Defense Win! EJW applies retroactively, reversal is the proper remedy for a legally defective extension hearing, and DJW survives yet another challenge.
Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2023 WI 59, 6/29/23, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)
In a case with potentially far-reaching implications for Chapter 51 appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issues a narrow holding that leaves a major D.J.W. issue for another day.
SCOTUS: Plain language of sentence enhancement statute means what it says
Lora v. United States, USSC No. 22-49, 2023 WL 4034313 (June 16, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Lora, unreported summary order (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Resolving a circuit split, a unanimous Supreme Court engages in a plain-language reading of a statute requiring a judge to impose a consecutive sentence for certain crimes and holds the statute does indeed mean what it says, and no more.
SCOTUS: Penalty enhancement statute must be interpreted to apply narrowly
Dubin v. United States, USSC No. 22-10, 2023 WL 3872518 (June 8, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Dubin, 27 F.4th 1021 (5th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Faced with competing interpretations of a penalty enhancement statute, the Supreme Court adopts the narrower interpretation based on both a careful reading of the language and context of the statute and its “tradition[] of “exercis[ing] restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute.” (Slip op. 17).