On Point blog, page 13 of 790

SCOW grants review of conviction “switcheroo”

State v. McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/7/24; case activity (including briefs)

In a case with potential ramifications for future OWI appeals, SCOW has opened yet another chapter in this ongoing appellate saga.

SCOW accepts review of case involving defense speedy trial win

State v. Ramirez, 2022AP959, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/7/24; reversed 6/27/25 case activity (including briefs)

In a case involving what we labeled as a “big” defense win, SCOW accepts the State’s petition for review asking for clarification of the law pertaining to constitutional speedy trial violations.

COA rejects challenges to TPR order and affirms

Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.

Defense Wins: Involuntary medication order for incompetent criminal defendant may not be based solely on dangerousness.

State v. N.K.B., 2023AP722-CR, 10/1/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

N.K.B. (referred to as Naomi) was found incompetent to proceed on her criminal charges.  The circuit court authorized involuntarily administering medication to Naomi because she was dangerous.  Naomi argued on appeal that the circuit court did not have authority to authorize involuntarily medicating her based only on dangerousness.  In a recommended-for-publication decision, the COA vacated the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntary medication: “Defendants committed under § 971.14 cannot be involuntarily medicated based on dangerousness absent the commencement of proceedings under ch. 51 or some other statute that authorizes involuntary medication based on the defendant’s dangerousness.”  (¶ 20).

August and September 2024 COA Publication Orders

In August and September, COA released a number of published decisions:

Defense Win! COA reverses default judgment in TPR

State v. A.M.Y., 2024AP1162, 9/26/24, District 4 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.M.Y. appealed the TPR order related to her daughter, Y.R.C.Y., arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by granting default judgment against her as to grounds for termination. The COA agrees, as the circuit court failed to take evidence sufficient to show that grounds for termination existed prior to granting default judgment, and the state fails to show the error was harmless.

COA: Driver misinformed he would be charged with first-offense OWI did not have right to refuse breath test; Ignition Interlock statute does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause when applied to out-of-state resident.

State v. Sharpe, 2021AP1543 & 2022AP307, 9/24/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity here and here

COA determines defendant arrested for OWI did not meet burden to show that he was unable to make knowing and intelligent choice about submitting to breath test when officers misinformed him that he would be charged with a first-offense OWI.  COA rejects facial and as-applied challenge to IID statute based on Dormant Commerce Clause.

COA rejects challenges to refusal finding; holds that refusal statute is not unconstitutional

State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.

COA rejects challenges to “abandonment” verdict in TPR involving allegations that mother withheld child’s location from father

A.M.D. v. G.R.B., Jr., 2024AP1071, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

G.R.B. (“Bartel”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights, raising a medley of challenges. Although COA acknowledges that its prior precedent sent “mixed signals” to litigants on at least one of the issues, it ultimately rejects all of G.R.B.’s arguments and affirms.

7th circuit affirms denial of habeas relief in pre-Smith confrontation clause analysis

Christopher Roalson v. Jon Noble, No. 22-2833, 8/28/24

The Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief, applying pre-Smith law on the confrontation clause, as the underlying WI COA decision dates back to 2014. The Court concludes that the rule the COA applied–“one expert cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinion of another” and must instead “render[] her own expert opinion”–did not contradict Melendez-Diaz or Bullcoming, the established precedent at the time.