On Point: Uncategorized

State v. B.M.T.,  2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.

Racine County v. R.P.L., , 2025AP813-FT, petition for review of a unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25

In a surprise grant outside the usual petition conference cycle, SCOW accepts review of a case involving the evidentiary requirements for an annual review of a protective placement issue.

State v. Jonathan James Petersen, 2024AP581-CR, 11/19/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The COA recommended publication of its decision to affirm a ban on social media as a condition of extended supervision for a defendant convicted of stalking, false imprisonment, and making terrorist threats.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25; case activity

SCOW granted R.D.T.’s petition for review to address: 1) whether the appeal from his recommitment is moot where the commitment expired but he remained liable for the costs of care and subject to a firearm ban; and 2) whether the circuit court made sufficient factual findings grounded in admissible evidence to support R.D.T.’s recommitment. 

State v. Max Bell, 2024AP1923-CR, 2024AP1924-CR, & 2024AP1925-CR, 11/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Whether to join cases for trial is a separate inquiry from whether to sever cases that have been joined.  While the severance subsection of the joinder statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.12(3), directs the circuit court to sever charges if a party is prejudiced by joinder, the circuit court is not required by statute to consider prejudice when determining whether charges should be joined.  See Wis. Stat. § 971.12(1),(4).  Nevertheless, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that a circuit court is permitted to consider prejudice when making its initial joinder decision.  The COA affirmed joinder of Max Bell’s charges for trial and his subsequent convictions in each case.

State v. A.A., 2025AP1907, 11/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case involving a unique waiver posture, COA concludes that the circuit court correctly interpreted the statutes when it used a waiver decision in another county to exempt A.A. from juvenile jurisdiction.

State v. Angela R. Joski, 2023AP1371-CR, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

The state appealed Joski’s early release under Wis. Stat. § 973.195, arguing that pursuant to State v. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81, ¶24, 395 Wis. 2d 215, 952 N.W.2d 836, Joski must fully serve the mandatory minimum three-year term of initial confinement prescribed by Wis. Stat. § 346.65. COA agrees due to Gramza‘s interpretation, and reverses.

La Crosse County and S.A.A. v. M.A., 2025AP269, 10/30/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another protective placement win, COA agrees that the County’s evidence failed to satisfy the standards and reverses.

State v. Christopher J. Syrrakos & Kristyn A. Shattuck, 2024AP554 & 2024AP556, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The COA held, in a decision recommended for publication, that a licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for offenses related to possessing, manufacturing, and delivering products that contain concentrations of THC above the threshold to be classified as “hemp” without a referral by the agency concerned with regulating the hemp industry.

State v. Jason D. Hull, 2025AP483, 10/23/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s judgment that the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department had probable cause to believe that Jason Hull operated a vehicle while intoxicated and his refusal to submit to chemical testing was therefore improper.