On Point

Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16. 

State v. Zackery J. Olson, 2023AP369-CR, 5/22/24, District II (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

Olson’s erroneous exercise of discretion claim regarding the court’s decision to impose a prison sentence instead of probation fares about as well as you would expect. The court of appeals reviews and details the record supporting the court’s decision and affirms because Olson failed to meet his burden to prove the sentencing court erred.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, 5/21/24, District III (not recommended for publication);petition for review granted case activity

Although this defense win is unpublished and therefore nonprecedential, COA’s analysis and synthesis of the law regarding this commonly litigated issue is an important read for litigators considering such claims.

Portage County v. D.A., 2023AP1237, 1255 & 1272, 5/9/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although “David” presents a superficially knotty jurisdictional argument, COA ultimately holds that he has forfeited this otherwise non-meritorious legal issue.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.

State v. J.A.N., 2023AP1108, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Z.D.S., 2023AP1109, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. S.R., 2023AP1110, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a series of appeals seemingly aimed at the discretionary decisions of an individual circuit court judge, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision to dismiss and refer these juvenile prosecutions for a DPA under a well-settled standard of review.

Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2024 WI 21 (per curiam), 5/14/24, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Although many practitioners may have hoped that this case would resolve recurrent issues in appeals of involuntary medication orders, those issues will have to be resolved another day given SCOW’s order dismissing the petition as improvidently granted.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. A.G.O., 2023AP1305, 1307 & 1308, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another TPR case involving allegations of ineffective assistance, COA affirms based on hard-to-overcome legal standards.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson, No. 21-3332, 4/30/24

In an interesting § 1983 appeal, Sabo reveals a disturbing trend of miscalculated sentences by the Wisconsin DOC.

Keith C. Henyard v. Cheryl Eplett, No. 22-3086, 4/26/24

Although Henyard argues that his conviction must be reversed because the lawyer who represented him was also the judicial official who bound him over for trial, the Seventh Circuit denies relief and holds that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not erroneously apply governing federal law.